The Sound Of Settled Science

The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air
temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of
propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of
demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear
extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear
projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant
GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual
average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is
strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient
theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error introduces an
annual average ±4 Wm–2 uncertainty into the simulated tropospheric thermal
energy flux. This annual ±4 Wm–2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger
than the annual average ∼0.035 Wm–2 change in tropospheric thermal energy
flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979. Tropospheric thermal
energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature. Uncertainty in
simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected
air temperature. Propagation of LWCF thermal energy flux error through the
historically relevant 1988 projections of GISS Model II scenarios A, B, and
C, the IPCC SRES scenarios CCC, B1, A1B, and A2, and the RCP scenarios of
the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, uncovers a ±15 C uncertainty in air
temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection. Analogously large
but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the
past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced
climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air
temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in
climate observables.

Full article is at

(h/t to Dean)

63 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. Oh, well. It was nice while it lasted.

    Um, Premier John Horgan of BC, can we now get rid of the “carbon tax” on domestic natural gas?

    Can we also dispense with the move to zero-emission vehicles by 2040?

    And get we also dispense with that “Climate Action Plan” that your good buddy, former Premier Gordon Campbell, set up in 2008?

      1. getting rid of the BC carbon tax on gasoline?

        Hahahahahahahahahaha! That’ll happen when Prinz Dummkopf is voted out of office.

  2. “LWCF calibration error is ±114 × larger than the annual average increase in GHG forcing. This fact alone makes any possible global effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions invisible to present climate models.”

    Anything with all that Math must have Merit….So the fairy farts are invisible… Yep! The dog under Mann’s deck is imaginary… He will find the source of that smell somewhere in the Noise…

    Well done Sir,

    1. The paper is well-written, well-thought out, well-reviewed, accurate, and devastating. If the AGW crowd had any shame they would be seriously depressed right now and deep in reflection.

      see wattsupwiththat for more comments and also discussion with the author

      However, you can’t shame the shameless. The AGW priests/worshippers will ignore this paper.

    1. You mouth the words as you read? You never learned to break that habit in 3rd grade?

      However, yes, it is eye-crossing esoteric data … TBH … I just quickly scan the detail, and go straight to the conclusion. If I don’t “believe” the conclusion “sounds” logical … I will go back and read the detail … in more detail.

      Just giving you stick … not trying to be mean. You know, its something MEN used to do to each other … before EVERYTHING became “bullying”. The natural, beneficial, way men probe each other to gauge their manhood. I assume your manhood can stand up to my snarky comment.

    1. They played WW2 ‘Days of the panzer’ 300 times and the allies lost the second world war every time.

      Somebody just said ‘maybe the game is unbalanced ?’

  3. The left wing nuts will never let facts or truth interfere their narrative. they want control and this is just one of the tools they are using. The majority has to understand that climate and weather is beyond their control and get back to adapting and working to keep water, air and soil clean to produce adequate food. CO2 is not now nor has ever been a problem, except when it gets too low.

    1. Nope. The Co2 hysterics will DOUBLE DOWN on their fatally-flawed computer models despite the repeated INCORRECT predictions. They will continue to DENY reality, and embrace FANTASY.

      Computer models are NOT science. Computer models are dependent upon REAL science as the input. Each FAILED computer model should be discarded and rebuilt … but the computer scientists (not REAL climate scientists) are so invested in getting a CATASTROPHIC answer … then just continue the FAIL.

      1. “Kevin and I will keep (skeptic papers) out (of IPCC) somehow – even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is”
        – Phil Jones, “Climategate” emails.

        See also:

        “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
        Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

        “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
        Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

  4. Oh noooo! Trudeau’s Globe and Mail reports that air quality in B.C. is at the same levels as it was in 2007, despite a carbon tax.

  5. So scheer-the-steer will be rescinding his support for turdo la doo on the Paris Climate farce any day now, right?

      1. “I’ll take my chances with “scheer – the – steer” over Butt’s jackass.”

        Well, that’s hardly high praise. I’d take my chances with a dead skunk over Butt’s jackass.

  6. Now the farting and tap dancing begins by all political parties in Canada. They want you dead or backed into a cave in the dark gnawing on a bone. The new push to ban all fossil fuels based on this nonsense has begun in earnest. California is banning Natural Gas use now. The New Green Deal wants ban on fossil fuels. Trudeau/Climate Barbie Lizard May the state controlled media all want oil and gas shutdown. What does that mean? It means Global Famine and the Greatest Die Back of Humans in history. It is something never asked by media or the people who vote for these idiots. If you ban fossil fuels you can not grow enough food to feed the almost 8B people on the planet. Fossil Fuels keep us warm in winter and cools our homes in summer, they transport us and our food locally and globally. Ask the question, here is the answer without fossil fuels we will return civilization to the pre steam era of history. Muscle of man and beast. Look for yourself at the Energy Use Flow chart from Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in the US from 2018. Remove all fossil fuel inputs and what do you see? I see starvation and a new DARK AGE and death of Billions of people. They want you dead. Wake Up.

    1. Watcher is 100% Correct in this.

      ..the GOAL.?
      < (LESS THAN)
      1 Billion HUMANS on Planet Earth.
      That, my friends, is the definition of that oft used, UN Derived term of:

      An Agenda of DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION & De-Population as championed by Maurice Strong. And its not only Climate Change, its combined with Social Upheaval & the mandated infiltration of ISLAM into SOLEY Western Hemisphere Nations.

      The ultimate ending being a compliant single billion lot of humanity under the watchfull eye & yoke of ISLAM with the 100 thousand (now converted in name only of course – no different than the Saudi, Kuwaiti or Emirati type), “Elites” enjoying the fruits of their labour.

      (It has to be Islam – the perfect system that garantee’s to keep ALL in line – only way out is in a pine box)….Not stupid our Elites, not stupid at all.


  7. Well written article. It will be ignored. As has been mentioned before: Global Warming and Climate Change(TM) were NEVER about science: they’re simply rhetorical canards used to justify ever-increasing government control and regulation of the economy and of society. The modern generations grew up isolated from reality; it’s easier to frighten them with the weather than it would have been to scare their great-great grandparents, who had to live in it.

    1. You are all gonna DIEEEEEEEEE … if you don’t surrender all you have to the eco-communist elites. It is a MORAL imperative that you surrender ALL your God-given FREEDOMS … to “save the planet”. This is what you’re being told. Not a speck of science in any of it.

      1. They have everybody running scared with Climate Emergency, and nobody is connecting the dots to the final outcome of these insane policies. And the policies from this hysteria if fully implemented mean famine and death to Billions. The Green Revolution that has fed the 3rd world was only possible with the fertilizers pesticides an herbicides created out of fossil fuels. Never mind that it is diesel and gasoline that plant, and harvest and haul all that food. Dark Ages Coming and a Great Die Back. The end goal is they only need so many useless eaters to take care of the elite.

  8. Pippi Longstocking will save us all…

    Will Mick Jagger or any of those other a-holes read this? No.

    The emergency catastrophe apocalypse will keep humming along until it is one.

  9. We can’t measure cloud cover – one of the most sensitive inputs into the climate model – so we just estimate it. Nice.

    1. They can’t accurately measure CO2 either. Of the 100% of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere, 97% of it is caused by natural processes of nature and earth itself. Of the remaining 3% they estimate the manmade part at .004%. There is no physical way to gather all the earths atmosphere and accurately weigh/measure it. It is all estimates, conjecture and pure unadulterated Horse Shit. And based on conjecture and wind and piss estimates from people who can not forecast local weather accurately beyond 3 days they want to destroy your life. Go out and burn some old tires for Gaia.

  10. Dr. Tim Ball recognized this in his book “The Deliberate Corruption Of Climate Science” that no attention was given to the area where weather begins!!!! Namely the Tropopause which is between the Troposhere and the Stratosphere and this omission made all climate models wrong!!! The IPCC deliberately left this out because it didn’t suit their modelling! The real scientist like Dr. Ball and Dr. Patrick Moore have said the same thing as this report for years! They have been standing up for science while other so called scientists are making money on the Climate Change farce !

  11. Why do you think these loons are calling for a climate emergency?
    The jig is up and they want to extract as many $B’s as they can before it all collapses.
    The schemers for this unprecedented fraud should be lined up against the wall and shot, after a fair trial of course which I am sure will be very brief.
    Trillions stolen.

  12. I love the rationale that because modelling climate is difficult, we should just assume everything is perfectly fine and no danger exists at all. Brought to you by the people who believe the world was created 6000 years ago by a kindly but jealous old bearded dude. History will not treat you people kindly.

    1. You’re absolutely right. We should panic. We have no idea why were panicking, there is no reason to panic, but why not, let’s panic.

      I am quite sure you are panicking right now, eating your grass sandwich in your freezing cave. Surely you are not a hypocrite living a modern energy lifestyle that you preach we shouldn’t have. No, not you – no sir, you are not a hypocrite.

      1. Do… do you not actually realize it’s possible to take a moderate position on things? It seems like you’ve made the choice for a tiny fraction more personal wealth over the wellbeing of our descendents and now you’ve created this narrative in your head to justify it by any means. Even if everyone is hysteric and overreacting and there’s actually only a 1% chance we’re indeed headed towards destruction, is it really worth the risk just so you can slightly more easily afford that next shiny trinket?

        1. Why would anyone ever have the belief that humans can affect the climate and if they did why it would be in any way dangerous? When CO2 levels were 2 times, 10 times, or 100 times more than at present, the climate was significantly milder and lusher than today. Fun thing about nature is when CO2 increases, plant growth goes nuts sequestering much of it. The earth heals itself.

          1. Funny thing about nature is that when CO2 increases, it does so over millennia and not over decades like what is currently happening.

          2. Andrew, what do you think the ppm of CO2 should be in the atmosphere????? You do know that under 200 we start dying?

        2. I have undergone elective surgery with much less odds than 99%, because the choice was between walking normally again or forever limp one block, which had become the limit of my range. Though much less than 99%, the odds were still much in my favor. And I won that one.
          So it isn’t bravado when I say that yes, 99% is definitely worth the risk, because what we are fighting for is much more than “more easily afford that next shiny trinket.” We are not talking about affordability but availability. We are not talking about shiny trinkets but essentials. What we are fighting for is nothing less than western civilization, and the unbelievably great lots of life for almost all common man. For a 1% probability, I’ll not throw away cheap and available energy, my favorite foods, inclusive of yummy red meat, my ease of travel, cooking with natural gas, and a myriad other prohibitions you and your ilk want to impose.
          Prorated over a life span of 80 years, you have a 1% chance of dying in a car accident, based on about 100 traffic deaths in the U.S. daily. We are talking about a much less drastic choice here. is it really worth the risk just so you can have the convenience of a car? And the number is based on real data, not something you pulled out from where the sun doan shine.

        3. Right, your hysteria is “moderate”.

          It’s like you’ve made the choice that preening about what a good person you are for supporting things like paying an idiotic tax that does nothing to address its purported goal is more important than whether your pig-ignorant positions actually stand up to scrutiny.

        4. Your cure is more deadly than your imagined disease. Forcing people to live in poverty, in the cold, in the dark, with no ability to travel and see this great world we are supposedly protecting is not a solution. Meanwhile, those who supposedly care the most travel around in gross luxury.

          I’ll take your concern and dump it rightly in the garbage where it belongs since it not actually concern but moral preening.

    2. ” … because modelling climate is difficult.”

      “… because modelling climate has repeatedly FAILED.” There, I fixed it.

      Engineers have modeled how materials respond to natural forces. Thousands of Formulae, including some extremely sophisticated dynamic computer modelling has been created, tested, and perfected. Developing ALL these computer models has been … uh, “difficult”. But they aren’t FAILURES. They accurately predict how nature, and all ‘her’ forces impact structures. Not so with climate “science”. Get back to me when the computer models actually WORK. Until then, the models are just so much mental masturbation.

      Your comparison of FAKE computer models to Religion (of any sort) is telling. YOU are comparing two religions. I don’t compare REAL science, REAL math, with religious belief.

        1. And Andrew you are a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome. Completely brainwashed. Slurpin your pablum that has be regurgitated for you by the likes of Lizard May of the Green Party. A vomit sipper. Get it while its hot Andy

      1. It’s been about ten years since I followed anything about climate modelling. It hasn’t improved. The number of acronyms has increased, though.

        One of my former students did galactic modelling for a while. He remarked to me that though he could obtain agreement with observation, his models had so many adjustable parameters that he had no confidence in his results.

        An honest man. And he needed a job at the time, too.

    3. The point isn’t whether modeling climate is difficult. Yes it is, the more so you should question the results. The point, first, is whether the models agree with data. No, mostly they are in violent disagreement. So the second point is, do you want to abandon centuries of scientific and technological advancement, whereby the lot of the ordinary person is by far the best in the history of the world. You, Andrew, want to forego cheap energy, plenty of protein rich food, transportation that have shrunk distances, politics that are based on faith in the common man rather than in dictators. You want to do all that based on faulty models that have violently disagreed with real world evidence.
      I’ll let Richard Feynman debate you through his quotes. He was the greatest physicist in the second half of the twentieth century. His quantum electrodynamics is a thing of beauty (based on what everyone but him call the Feynman diagrams.) First and foremost, it is a thing of beauty because it completely explains electromagnetic interactions, and agrees with data to whatever level of accuracy you care to calculate.
      He is also famous for the Challenger inquiry, where he pinned down the cause of the incident so that the average layman can understand. (He dropped an O-ring into a glass of ice water and watched it crack.) It is really too bad he died before his time, because I am convinced which side of the controversy he would be on. And that is the same side as his long time friend and colleague Professor Dyson.
      I’ll let his quotes debate you.
      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
      “…pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are alright; you can talk to them and try to help them out. But pompous fools – guys who are fools and covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus – THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”
      “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”
      For the convenience of others, I’ll give the website where I found these quotes. There are pages more, all revealing the wisdom of the man:

      1. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong” – exactly. Simple, but disagreeable to non-scientists.

    4. Andrew, at 11:09. have you:

      a) given up your internal combustion car?

      b) given up airplane flights?

      c) converted your home heating to electric?

      d) become a vegan?

      If you’ve answered “no” to any of the above, you are not helping to save the planet. 🙁

      Funny that most of the climate crusaders I know, and others typified by Justin Trudeau and Leo DiCaprio, seem to fly off to vacation in places that are 10 to 30C warmer than their homes.

      Bring on global warming!

    5. Andrew at 11:09

      “History will not treat you people kindly”

      Well Andy, when history comes around the next ice age will be starting and the climate crusaders will be trying to heat the planet to save the great boreal forests from being covered with ice. And the Great Barrier Reef will end up far above sea level.

      Of course, if the planet is warm enough that no ice age occurs, they’ll be thanking us.

    6. When the new ice age comes Andy I will chain you too my wood pile, and feed you oatmeal gruel while you split my firewood for the outdoor furnace. You will finally work for your food. All you hysterical climate warmers and your man buns will be using real axes and sledge hammers to split firewood like serfs for us Deniers of your lies.

  13. Just another point that I have noticed.. All the Democrat States that depend on Tobacco Taxes are reporting Vaping deaths (terrible problem)…..The money must be drying up & since PLL are living longer Medical costs are going up….They have to get another source of Taxation to fund the socialist state….AGW had promise but it is DOA….The GE Windmill power business is been sued by shareholders…

    The human manure & homeless in California will increase (X10) as all States will fill Buses with those that want to chase the unicorns & Surf .. Welcome back the black death, or pay for Illegal alien Medical costs

    1. Absolutely correct. Just IMAGINE what new taxes will be imposed on us … when all the gasoline taxes dry up.

  14. I’ve concluded years ago that the human warming signal is indistinguishable from the noise caused from the chaotic system of every changing variables that affect the Earth’s climate. It’s good to see something that backs that up. Now can somebody back up the garbage truck to get rid of these wastefully expensive distracting useless GCM’s?

  15. “Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models.”

    CAGW analysis: “it’s the warmest year EVER.” Time to board those jet airliners to virtue signal all over the world.

    Especially miscreant third worlders who don’t understand alternative energy, aka no energy, is the only way (they will permit).

    But it’s so gauche there, so the lectures and false promises will have to made from a luxury resort in the (not too warm) tropics.

  16. For you who do not subscribe to the Shreekers of the Manmade Church of Global Warming and Taxation. NASA just released report in June 2019. Of course not carried by the State Owned Media and Propagandists. As it is counter to Global Warming Hysteria. Hidden in the report it says that the Sun in the next cycle will be the weakest output in 200 YEARS. In other words if you think the Sun actually keeps us warm instead of 3% atmospheric content of an obscure gas called CO2, best be getting ready for very cold record breaking weather Globally. The Watts per M. are going to plummet. Our asses are going to freeze and there will probably be food shortages..Quote From Report “Research now underway may have found a reliable new method to predict this solar activity. The Sun’s activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle. The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.” Research Maunder Minimum.…or-exploration

    1. This is why the warmists are in overdrive to put in policies they say will counteract global warming. They want to take credit for the cooling cycle, instead of giving it to the sun. If we do nothing, and the earth cools anyway, no one will believe them any more.

      P.S. I hate as heck to correct people, but this will help in your debate with the warmists. The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 400 parts per million, or .04%. 3% would be too much of a good thing. The best guess for the Mesozoic (the last period of high CO2 concentration) was maybe 2500 ppm. And CO2 is hardly obscure. It’s a critical part of the carbon cycle which supports life. Below something like 250 ppm, and all life will cease to exist. So we are actually much closer to the critical low concentration, not the critically high concentration.

      1. Hey OldBruin it’s OK. I should have checked before I posted. I went back and reread my source and realized I had made a mistake. It happens to seniors. By the time I got back my edit had expired. And CO2 200M plus years ago was 6000 PPM. As far as that goes all of their numbers of CO2% is guess work. How can anyone truly accurately measure the whole atmosphere of the earth at the same time. Certain areas will randomly have slightly higher concentrations and other areas lower concentrations. Not only that but the CO2 cycle lags global temp by 800 years. So today’s CO2 was created years ago and is being released because of the warming cycle. Anyway you cut it they are full of it, but thanks

  17. CO2 lags temp by 800 years in Vostock Ice Core Samples.
    ….From article..The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.

    1. I remember the First US Congressional hearing where the ICE core expert was unsure if he agreed with AGW..
      The group said that he lacked the ability to SEE the climate signature in his work with Greenland ice Cores. In the second hearing he had seen the signature (Yep) and agreed. He was at Penn State “Prof Richard Ally”

  18. The Comments had this gem that some pissed-off lady PHD posted:
    “Peer review requires peers to review, not pals and certainly not ignoramuses.”

    I think this paper may trigger a Class Action Court face off….The Trillions that Gore & Pals defrauded the public provide a cast of deep pockets in the MSM & all those Corporations that have benefited…
    This Paper & the Michal Mann response to the inquiry of PEN-State ( I can’t find it on google) but I read it @ the Time… Should be enough to get the “more likely than not” 51% threshold…Those Folks better start shredding .

    More will come out as all the PHD’s have to cover their butts….Reputations at stake….Ego has no limit


  19. Dr. Valentina Zharkova report 2018 that we are headed to a new Maunder Solar Minimum. Of course she was attacked by the Global Warming Preachers, they have Billions at stake. Plus the Paris Accord is an agreement were Western Nations will transfer 90T in Funds to be redistributed and skimmed by UN pocket Pickers.

  20. One more:

    “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

  21. Lizard May of the Green Party interview. Would ration carbon she says to reduce global warming. (Translation carbon means Fossil Fuels.) Like I have been saying they will have you backed into a cave freezing in the dark gnawing on a bone. They want you dead. Think I will become a harness maker. So when the fossil fuel is rationed, you can buy harness to have all these Green Commies tow vehicles around like the nostalgic good old days. I will have my driver whip their fat asses into a lather. In their nose bags would be a handful of soybeans.