As Globe Runs Fever, Did Scientists Get it Right?

January 20, 2017

In the wake of the announcement by the world’s leading data keepers, that we’ve now seen 3 record setting years of global temperature, let’s take stock of whether scientists have gotten this thing right.

Above,  here are model runs from various widely used climate models versus actual measurements of global temperature.  How are they doing? You decide.

Below, John Cook asked Ken Caldeira the same question – what did science and models tell us that we now have actually observed?

Finally,  in this popular vid, you can see clips from Mike McCracken’s 1982 presentation at Sandia Labs. Did he get it right? Some of his talk then could have been delivered yesterday.

UPDATE: More below:

Berkeley Earth, originally a Koch funded effort by Climate denying physicist Richard Muller, to their credit, did a comprehensive and critical examination of global temp records, decided climate change was, in fact, real and caused by humans, and has turned into a reliable and respected source of information.

Below, Berkely’s comparison of models vs measurements.

models-and-observations-annual-1979-2000-baseline

And finally, Berkeley Earth founder, skeptic Richard Muller’s take on how he came to understand the big picture of climate warming.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “As Globe Runs Fever, Did Scientists Get it Right?”


  1. Reblogged this on AGR Daily News Service.

    (in case any of you haven’t caught that yet)

    • Torsten Says:

      I see that AGR has 79,659 followers. So I don’t mind seeing that stuff from here is regularly reblogged there. It’s a useful contribution to others’ understanding, in contrast to the drivel you write.


      • Choose any one of my blog posts on the specific details I dissect on the people and origins surrounding the notion that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid industry money to lie’ – or – choose any one my online articles on that topic, and 1) highlight the most egregious 5 examples of what you call “drivel”, and then 2) offer precise evidence on how you proof it’s drivel, or better yet, how it’s a false fabrication fed to me by others who pay me to do what I do.

        Friend, I don’t think you could rise to that challenge if a million dollar wager outcome depended on it. But worse for you, I don’t think you have the courage to bring your material to the next gathering of skeptic scientists / speakers as proof that what they say is false fabricated drivel bought by illicit industry money, if the same million dollar wager outcome depended on it. Like I said before, the light you see at the end of the AGW tunnel is the Trump train that is going to run over all of you AGW believers, by clarifying the issue for the public in a way that the mainstream media never could bring itself to do. When the greater public sees the info that’s been withheld from them for so long, you’ll see why yall need the exit strategy I’ve mentioned so many times now.

        Happy inauguration day, guys.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          “Friend, I don’t think you could rise to that challenge”

          You have the scoundrel’s haughtiness simply because you have not been prosecuted. If you ever were (may that day be soon) you wouldn’t stand a chance.

          Why? Because you tell lies and you get paid to keep telling them. QED.

          You are a piece of shit, RC.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          More delusional bullshit from Russell. How many times do we have to say that it’s the SCIENCE and the ACTUALITY of climate change that is going to sink him and the other denier whores.

          As usual, Russell would rather have us argue about whether or not he is a whore rather than discuss the very clear scientific evidence that things are going to hell in a hurry. That’s his game—-distract and deflect us from the truth while taking his 30 pieces of silver for his betrayal. Yes, GB, Russell is a YUGE piece of shit

          What’s going to “clarify the issue” for EVERYONE is when we pass the tipping points and enter a world of uncontrolled positive feedback—and it looks like we are getting there with sea ice and ice sheets at both poles. indy222 makes some excellent points in his two comments. Anyone who believes in a God that cares about humans needs to be praying more often.

        • Torsten Says:

          Russell, in this post:

          https://climatecrocks.com/2016/12/26/arctic-ice-crashing-in-mid-winter/#comment-88523

          you wrote:

          “Spin this any way you want, the Arctic ain’t melting on cue like you believe it is.”

          You’ve also seen this:

          I’ve told you that arctic ice area is one metric that climate models have gotten really wrong. They have generally greatly underestimated its rate of decline.

          So, you are in denial about this. That makes you a denier. So what you write on this topic is drivel.

          Back in December, here:

          https://climatecrocks.com/2016/12/08/winter-arrives-heres-your-dittohead-repellant/comment-page-1/#comment-88309

          in response to a reposted tweet of Eric Holthaus, you wrote”

          “Cherskiy, Russia is right at 0°F now, nowhere close to Holthaus’ balmy Tweet temperature, and significantly subfreezing for the weekly data as well.”

          Some days later I decided to examine your claim and wrote the following:
          _____________

          But on the 6th, Holthaus had written the following about weather expected on the 8th.:

          “Parts of the Russian Arctic will be around 60°F (33°C) warmer than normal on Thursday.

          Example: Chersky, Russia (normal high of -20°F)”

          And when I scroll back to the records for the 8th here:

          https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/russia/chersky/historic?month=12&year=2016

          I see the temperature got up to 4C that day.

          Holthaus wrote that the normal for that date is -20F, which equals just a bit warmer than -29C. So the temperature for that location was indeed 33C warmer than normal.

          Russell, did you not understand the importance of the date of that forecast? You cast aspersions on the man’s tweet, and yet it is your own lack of diligence or competence that is the problem.
          ________

          This is just another example of the drivel you write. And it took some effort to debunk it. You think you are defending your “sceptic scientists” against false claims. But you don’t have the necessary skills to evaluate the content of what your “sceptic scientists” are writing. As d.o.g. has stated, it is the science and the actuality of climate change that matters. I have told you that I am swayed by what is written in the scientific literature, particularly by the consilience of the varied methods of climate investigation. Your side does not demonstrate the slightest bit of this.

        • Lionel Smith Says:

          1) highlight the most egregious 5 examples of what you call “drivel”, and then 2) offer precise evidence on how you proof it’s drivel…

          I provided one example back in an earlier topic thread, but finding five egregious examples isn’t at all difficult, it is just a waste of time because there are so many to chose from, and let’s face it wasting our time is a part of your sad, sick game.

          By the way, do you not mean ‘prove’ which is the verb, proof being a noun and only applicable to criminology or spirits. No wonder you have trouble understanding basic science.

          One only has to watch the recent Channel Four Dispatches on ‘Trump’s Dirty Secrets’ for many more. BTW that a demonstration of how secretive the dirtiest of the dirty are, aiding in poisoning the planet for monetary gain and sometimes ire at being shunned by most of the scientific community. I am sure I spotted Richard Lindzen at that Heritage bash and there is another prime example to add to Pat Michaels mentioned earlier.

          But it doesn’t stop there, one only has to <a href="http://www.gregpalast.com/join-naacp-voter-fund-facebook-live-broadcast-film-trump-stole/"look behind the curtain to discover how climate science has been politicised and how politics has been stolen by oligarchs such as the Koch brothers. Russell, you are aiding and abetting some of the most despicable persons on the planet who I won’t even classify as human.

          The Kochs are examples of a new evolutionary species that has arisen, one without empathy, conscience or ethical compass. Some may call them psychopaths but they are worse than that, those that aid and abet could well be so classified.

          Your crowing and strutting here is gauche in the extreme, but that is you is it not.

        • Torsten Says:

          I have a post waiting in moderation – too many links I guess. So here I’ll try it again, in multi-pieces…

          Russell, in this post:

          https://climatecrocks.com/2016/12/26/arctic-ice-crashing-in-mid-winter/#comment-88523

          you wrote:

          “Spin this any way you want, the Arctic ain’t melting on cue like you believe it is.”

          You’ve also seen this:

          I’ve told you that arctic ice area is one metric that climate models have gotten really wrong. They have generally greatly underestimated its rate of decline.
          So, you are in denial about this. That makes you a denier. So what you write on this topic is drivel.

  2. indy222 Says:

    And yet, the model Arctic Sea Ice predictions were way too conservative, and the effects of all that new dark water are going to be profound, based on paleo evidence. If we use the same models un-tuned up for the Permafrost Carbon Feedback, for the perhaps rising Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity at higher temperature climate states (MacDougall et al, and Friedrich et al 2016), I’d say we can expect real climate to outrun those models which did so well in the past, when we had lower temps and reasonably intact Arctic Ocean reflectivity.

  3. indy222 Says:

    Sad another way, we’ve just been warming in an existing classic climate state, so that models could be expected to do well. But the utter loss of Arctic Sea Ice and the melting of the permafrost is beginning now to send us into a new climate state, where merely tuning a parameter or two may not be enough. Hansen et al. 2016 makes similar points. I fear we’re being too complacent about future climate based on especially those older IPCC model efforts which do not include these effects, and the latest thoughts on ECS.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: