Climate Modeling Civil War

Posted: August 16, 2021 by oldbrew in climate, modelling, Temperature, Uncertainty


‘You’re more wrong than we are!’ – seems to be the state of play here. Are there any models that wouldn’t get improved results if their so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ forcing was reduced or even removed?

PA Pundits - International

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

Looks like the climate modeling community may have a civil war on its hands. Some serious players are rejecting the new hot models, but probably not their owners. If so we will see modeler against modeler. Be still my heart.

The first loud public shot has been fired by the prestigious journal Science (actually it is more of a magazine but never mind). Science is devoutly alarmist but they reject the hot models in the strongest possible terms (in a lengthy article that is not paywalled).

Their blunt article title is “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming“. When it comes to science, “implausibly hot” is very strong language. Scientific language is normally extremely polite. (The U.N. climate panel is of course the IPCC.)

But it gets even stronger in the text. Here we find NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, arguably…

View original post 699 more words

  1. saighdear says:

    Hmm, slightly O/T but our GBN channel may give access for free speech, but seem to give an AAWFUL lot of time to some “tow-the Party line” groups. Last night I had to switch them off when talking about ‘ warming with professor someone whose title didn’t stay up for very long.
    So for the non-initiated, this still enforces the existence of warming by whatever the Party says…

  2. oldbrew says:

    Fear Not for Arctic Ice Mid August 2021

    No alarm this year. Only small seasonal variations since about 2007.

  3. pameladragon says:

    Some mighty big cracks in the CAGW edifice appearing now, a good thing for us all. Gavin seems to be playing a little CYA too, guess he is not yet ready to retire on full pension!

  4. oldbrew says:

    Maybe uber-alarm pays better bonuses 🤑

  5. Chaswarnertoo says:

    Oh dear! Ow sad. Never mind.

  6. Curious George says:

    “It appears that all these different modeling centers made the same change, which cannot have been a coincidence. And the change is such that they knew going in that they would make things much hotter.”
    It is difficult to avoid conspiracy theories.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    they are being paid to produce dire predictions of climate doom and gloom to support the AGW lockdowns and mandatory no-drive days to supposedly save the planet.

    In the US they are going to institute a mileage tax ostensibly to pay for roads and bridges that electrics do not chip in for. That’s about the gas/diesel tax they don’t pay. Of course the ugly part is that even gas vehicles will have to pay it – a double tax, gas tax and miles tax. That’s to make it too expensive not to switch over to electric and those will generally be too expensive for a significant part of the population to force them onto public transport.

    right along with that is the elimination of the single family home in the ‘burbs which will occur just about the same time as the feds write unconstitutional laws to override state and county zoning laws and build ghetto hives in the ‘burbs right in the middle of all those nice middle class single family areas. It’ll be based on ‘carbon footprint’ BS and that will generate a carbon tax on your home.

    This is all about control of the public by removing one freedom after another.

  8. Scott says:

    I’m not ready to award the winner in the ‘most wrong’ category of the climate-olympics. There is still time for a dark horse to arrive with a predicted 15.7deg increase.. go rinny!

  9. Phoenix44 says:

    Persuading people we require immediate drastic action needed much worse predictions. So much predictions were made.

    Why is anybody pretending this is “honest science”?

  10. oldbrew says:

    Climategate part 2…“divergence-free chronology”.


    Another Round Of Anti-Science From The IPCC (With A NEW Hockey Stick!)

    McIntyre comments:

    They took “hide the decline” to extremes that had never been contemplated by prior practitioners of this dark art. Rather than hiding the decline in the final product, they did so for individual trees: as explained in the underlying article, they excluded the “divergent portions” of individual trees that had the temerity to have decreasing growth in recent years. Even Briffa would never have contemplated such woke radical measures.
    – – –
    Seeing what they want to see, and ignoring the rest.

  11. Scott says:

    “Seeing what they want to see, and ignoring the rest.” — really being far too forgiving as to motivations.. need to go darker, much darker.

  12. oldbrew says:

    New Confirmation that Climate Models Overstate Atmospheric Warming

    Posted on August 17, 2021 by curryja
    by Ross McKitrick

    John and I were able to examine 38 models while Mitchell et al. looked at 48 models. The sheer number makes one wonder why so many are needed, if the science is settled.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s