Yet again, the National Post buries the news in the financial section;
… their findings “have strong implications for trends in climate model simulations and other observations” because the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period. They also note that their findings are “consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020),” namely that climate models have a pervasive global warming bias. In other research, Christy and mathematician Richard McNider have shown that the satellite warming rate implies the climate system can only be half as sensitive to GHGs as the average model used by the IPCC for projecting future warming.
Good article. McKitrick appears to be entirely correct in saying that climate models on average have been significantly too alarmist. He is also correct in saying that the IPCC tends to sound more like Greta Thunberg than a group reporting science objectively.
His critics in the comments claim that McKitrick fails to mention the apparent acceleration of warming in the second half of the satellite era record.
Both may be right.
Is that before or after the “adjustment” factor that they keep applying that seems to be heating the present and cooling the past?
Yes bye. Let’s keep putting drivel out for something that is not now nor ever has been a problem. I will not live long enough to see the demise of the idiots and morons.
or….stop reading at the word “model”, unless it involves a bathing suit.
“A prediction model is not designed to predict the future. It is designed to persuade people to act in a desired manner.” S. Adams
F**k them.
The only thing that improves with more models is Robert Palmer videos.
One thing you’ll NEVER see in Robert Palmer video? Greta Thunberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrGw_cOgwa8
You have to bury the truth somewhere.
The problem is that McKitrick is a climate denier so you can’t believe anything he says. If you want to know the truth about climate change you should only listen to those who are telling you the truth about climate change, You can trust those who tell you they’re telling the truth about climate change because they’re honest and honest people wouldn’t lie to you about being honest.
Whom to trust is indeed a challenge, especially in climate science.
A friend explained to me “we all ended up in journalism at Ryerson because we couldn’t pass grade 10 science!”
If you have the ability to understand peer reviewed science, you can check out McKitrick’s sources.
I have. My money is on him in this instance.
Also known as the Fonzarelli Paradox, popularized by Professor Arthur Fonzarelli back in 1956 I believe:
“She told me she was a virgin and virgins don’t lie”.
Well a proof is a proof and if you have a proof then the proof is proven.
Or something like that.
Postmedia, the American-owned/Canadian-subsidized ostensibly conservative media group, recently bought all the newspapers in NB and previously the Maritimes.
As you can imagine, you’re talking your typical Canadian Liberal-loving Media, we all know so well.
Nothing has changed.
Not a thing.
Same old Liberal fellating, Government loving, lying Canadian Media.
Conservative my ass.
Kevin Libin is a colossal failure.
Kinda like Conservatism in Canada.
The Media is the Enemy.
Royal Bank the No. 1 financier of fossil fuel development in the world, new report finds
All 5 big Canadian banks make list of Top 20 oil and gas funders, globally
Source: CBC
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/royal-bank-oil-and-gas-1.6809011
All models are wrong. Some are useful.
Oh but we will be told to “trust the science”.
If climate modeling really worked, they would be being deployed to make consistent outsized profits on the stock market. Not pathetic crybaby feel-good agenda models for chump change and a government grant.
Do you have ANY IDEA how many stock-pick, stock-market prediction models are out there!? Dare I say MILLIONS of em? Everyone selling you their “secrets Wall Street doesn’t want you to know” … for a modest $$ subscription rate. Yeah … wanna bet the catastrophic LOSSES outweigh the gains?
How we got to a place where we are willing to put COMPLETE faith in computer models, to the point of energy-suiciding our entire economy is beyond my understanding. A predictive computer model ISN’T science. It’s a tool to discover the science … but it isn’t anything like a simple, elegant, reliable, predictive/descriptive Physics formulae such as the force of gravity = F = G(m1m2)/R2. It’s complicated gobbledegook.
But HOW we got to the place where we are suiciding our entire economies and way of comfortable living is down to one simple old variable … human emotion. The scary, mysterious, computer models by TOP climate scientists … really top people … top have frightened the masses. That is all they are intended to do. The scare stories are being taught to our children starting in elementary school. You think teaching little girls that they can “become boys” is disgusting and awful? How about DECADES of teaching little children that their parents are destroying the planet and they’re all gonna BURN to death, starve, or die in the great climate wars of the future … a future where all snow has disappeared!!
A computer model has the cache’ of inerrancy to the average schlub, who knows nothing about the American Revolution, let alone complicated variable climate science. The average schlub (sadly a voter) trusts the computer. Computers never lie … after all … computers distribute their dance routines across the entire TiKTok planet in a matter of nanoseconds! So when “the computers” … and now AI … tells us that the planet is dying … the schlubs just hang their head and vote for Green New Deal Democrats.
Do you all remember when Jacques Cousteau was an inerrant predictor of planetary oceanic doom!? He claimed “our oceans are dying” in 1971 … at such a rapid rate that by now … here in 2023 … the oceans should be filled with nothing but death …
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/14/archives/our-oceans-are-dying.html
Hint: inerrant Jacques was ridiculously overstating man’s impact on the oceans. But doom and gloom SELLS to human emotions … and government media such as BBC and NPR sell it nonstop as inerrant Biblical Truth. Time to put our “emotions” in check … and stop brainwashing our kids that capitalism is killing the planet.
There are two trends going on in climate science, both serving to reduce the amount of expected warming.
The first is that the predicted amount of future emissions has been falling. In particular, RPC8.5 is being abandoned in favor of RPC4.5. The alarmists prefer RPC8.5, as that forecasts the most dire results, but it doesn’t currently seem plausible.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-biden-administration-abandons
The second is that the expected temperature response of the climate to CO2 forcing is being lowered. This article is an example of that.
These two effects don’t add but compound. Thus luke warmers such as Judith Curry are increasingly looking vindicated.
At least the NP is carrying the piece.
And I for one have seen a lot of success in finance based attacks on the credibility of DIE, ESG and climate change as people begin to realize that this affects their personal wealth. Look at the US governors who threaten to withdraw State pension funds from Blackrock and other similarly minded fear mongers creating markets they can lever to their personal advantage and mankind’s detriment.
And lets stop calling a computer model science. It is nothing better than a pre programmed output built on assumptions. It is not even a hypothesis – which is one of the basic elements of science.
Thank goodness that the facts are filtered out in the mass media cartel stories and the CeeBeeCee propaganda.
They saved the day.
Heh …. the models.
Told the McLeans magazine guy some years ago that the modelers are doing their best to outdo one another in the generation of heat, they actually published the interview.
Of course the warming today is beside the point, its the control, the taxes and dicktat (sic) that is important.
The press never publishes any actual useful information on climate change. McKitrick’s article is largely based on the work of Roy Spencer and John Christy from the University of Alabama, Huntsville. They publish global temperatures monthly, but we never see that in the press.
Just Google Roy Spencer and “latest global temperatures.”
The probable reasons for not publishing this are that most of our intrepid “climate science reporters” can’t read a simple line chart and for the few that can, the results simply don’t support a tidy alarmist narrative.
Mother Nature is a bitch!
“global temperatures” whether from 1850 or from yesterday can be whatever you want them to be.
Just pick the places and times and methods of measuring and recording the information to get the result you want.
How can anyone possibly think that you can compare a “global temperature” from 1850 that was measured most likely on ground based thermometers and recorded on paper to a number that is likely +/- one or two degrees from the actual temperature to measurements today recorded from ground level, weather balloons, satellites etc. in millions of different locations at all hours of day and night?
McKitrick is looking at UAH satellite data from 1979 onwards. No screwing around there.
The 1.6º C warming we’ve had over the past 100+ years or so, is due to the fact that we’ve been coming out of an ice age since 1850.
Less than 1/2 of 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere consists of CO2. The stuff you exhale. The amount of warming CO2 contributes to the atmosphere, is less than the warming my cat contributes to my apartment sitting in the next room over.
Coming soon – The War On Water Vapour.
RNrn
“the fact that we’ve been coming out of an ice age since 1850” is of course completely incorrect. The Earth has been locked in an ice age for over one million years. About 30,000 years ago we entered an interglacial period and the world warmed gradually. The Earth cools and warms and yes it was colder in 1850. But we are still locked in an ice age. I say this only because climate scientists have no idea why ice ages begin or end. They know that glacial and interglacial periods are strongly affected by Milankovitch cycles but they have no idea what causes El Nino and La Nina and they don’t know why the Earth cooled to 1850 or why it warmed up since then.
The reason the models don’t work is that they are too highly dependent on CO2 and they only have continuous time series on CO2 since the 1950s when the world was only warming. If your data only goes one way your model only goes one way.
Steve, I’d posit that the reason the warming models don’t work is because the premise is false to begin with.
Mr. Biker,
I don’t know you well enough to call you by your first name! There appears to be evidence that CO2 does warm the atmosphere. The question is how much and what can we realistically do about it.
“Globally, the researchers saw an average temperature increase of 1.7 ±0.4°C per trillion tonnes of carbon in CO2 emissions (TtC), which is consistent with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
If you do some math, you’ll find out that Canada’s TOTAL emissions possibly warm up the globe by 0.0012 degrees C per annum, or one degree in 836 years. Is this a crisis?
The impact of all of our windmills and solar panels is immeasurably small in degrees but huge in taxpayer dollars.
I
Hey, PJ.
Mr Biker is my Dad. DB is fine w/ me.
Yes, CO2 does warm the atmosphere. However, nowhere near the CAGW that the models & warmists claim.
Climate models are not understood by the public. There are many of these very expensive models, over forty that all provide different results, often wildly so. So much for “the science is settled.” If we understood climate, one model would obviously suffice.
Historically, the IPCC averages the results from these models (only one of them could possibly be right!) and tells the public that this average is somehow meaningful.
Canada’s model, housed in Victoria, has historically been the most alarmist and most incorrect of the lot. We’re number 1!
All I know is that the glacier along my north facing fence in Calgary has not melted yet and it is well into April.
Climate models are complete nonsense. None of them can even accurately recreate past temperature changes.
Likewise, projections from the IPCC are nonsensical political pronouncements.