10 Years On: How Did Climate Predictions Pan Out?

April 3, 2021

Above, climate scientist prediction from 2012.

Below, Denier Joe Bastardi predicts coming Little Ice Age.
You Decide.

UPDATE: below, more on the Myth of the Mini Ice Age, from actual experts:

13 Responses to “10 Years On: How Did Climate Predictions Pan Out?”

  1. Deciding to check Bastardi’s current sentiment, I was baffled by his Apr 3, 2021 tweet, “UAH temps are against the latest 30 year means which are warmer than the previous 30 years, meaning the same temperature now is lower vs the means than it was. Does not change the trend. CDAS temps still against the old means, so are warmer.”

    Bastardi is referring to UAH (U. of Alabama Huntsville) Roy Spencer’s more coherent analysis, which includes the following disclaimer or commendation, depending upon one’s POV.

    “Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.”


    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      I can’t pass up any reference to Roy Spencer without pointing out that he signed “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”, which is the antithesis of scientific impartiality in the face of facts.

      • The Cornwall Alliance a five-star example of motivated reasoning.

        “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”

        “We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.”


  2. Peter’s 2016 Yale Climate Connection video “How Reliable are Satellite Temperatures?” clearly defines Spencer’s explanation as a disclaimer.

  3. grindupbaker Says:

    Based on the actual surface/air warming the last 45 years, and the global heaters over that period, and using CO2 & CH4 in the atmosphere just continuing to increase at the same rate as 2017-2019 the next 40 years of surface-air warming will be:
    2020-2030 +0.25 degrees
    2030-2040 +0.31 degrees
    2040-2050 +0.37 degrees
    2050-2060 +0.43 degrees
    Total = +1.36 degrees
    So at 2060 AD will be 1.38 + 1.36 = 2.74 degrees above 1750 AD. No computer models are needed to get that basic information, only projecting for the next 40 years what has happened for the last 45 years. The basic GLOBAL thermodynamics is simple enough. The global heater is now 560,000 gigawatts (2015-2020 average) and +CO2 +CH4 have been adding 20,000 gigawatts / year to that. Before 1995 global heater was 200,000 gigawatts. 1995-2015 it averaged 396,000 gigawatts. Surface-air temperature increased +0.18 degrees / decade. Using those global heater and surface-air warming data leads to the inescapable definite conclusion of warming 2020-2060 AD that I tabled above.
    The increase in surface/air temperature combined with the increase in the global heater over the last 45 years calculates to a “climate sensitivity” of 2.79 degrees. The “climate sensitivity” is the surface/air temperature response (warming) for CO2 doubling. The CMIP5 computer models for that are averaging 3.3 degrees so they are averaging 3.3 / 2.79 = 118% of the measured reality so either the computer models are 18% too high or there really will be some exponential increase to one or more +ve feedbacks such as Arctic region Spring/Summer ice/snow reduction before CO2 reaches CO2 doubling, in which case the computer models will not have over-estimated by the 18% and might have actually under-estimated.
    For the increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) the AR5 model range for CO2 doubling is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees (so median is 3.0 degrees) but climate scientists are thinking 3.3 degrees is most likely.
    Unrelated to Models and to my straightforward calculations above of what’s actually happened (mostly the last 45 years) the huge PALEOSENS project had +3.6 degrees for CO2=556 ppmv (doubled) equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) over 2,000 years as the most-likely, median, result in 25 of the 31 proxy analyses spread over millions or tens of millions of years (the other 6 are mostly warmer outliers & too far different to be given much credence).

  4. Keith McClary Says:

    “Global warming hiatus” is no longer trending:

    • grindupbaker Says:

      Ah but WHICH hiatus ? The sage grandfatherly hiatus that started 1996-10 and runs 217 months through 2014-10, or the one that started in 2016 when the El Nino ended ? or is there an hiatus starting after 2020 yet ? Too soon ?

  5. grindupbaker Says:

    From: support-AT-remss-DOT-com Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 12:58 To:
    Subject: RE: STAR MSU onboard calibration procedure mismatches a solid-housed thermometer placed in the atmosphere
    Hello , Let me look into this and get back to you.
    Michael Densberger
    Remote Sensing Systems
    707-545-2904 ext. 11
    From: Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:00 PM To: support-AT-remss-DOT-com
    Subject: STAR MSU onboard calibration procedure mismatches a solid-housed thermometer placed in the atmosphere
    If I’m understanding the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure correctly, then it measures a different physical aspect of Earth’s atmosphere than is measured by a thermometer (either liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance) and it measures a lesser physical aspect. The underlying reason for the difference is that there is no long-wave radiation (LWR) inside a solid such as a platinum-resistance thermometer. I’ve never heard a climate scientist mention this.
    If the lower tropospheric (for example) atmosphere warms then there is an anomaly in these forms of energy:
    – molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy),
    – LWR energy,
    – molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form).
    The warm target in a MSU/AMSU is a solid blackbody whose temperature is measured by platinum resistance thermometers embedded in it. The microwave flux density from it is used to scale microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere. The issue I see is that this onboard calibration procedure causes the instrument to scale such that it measures only molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy) in the atmosphere and excludes LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs in the atmosphere. This means that differentiation over time of this proxy measures only heat anomaly.
    A liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer placed in the atmosphere at elevation 2m (for example) above ocean or land surface measures:
    – molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy) plus
    – LWR energy plus
    – molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form)
    because LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs are transmuted to molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy) upon impacting upon the molecules of the solid and I understand that there is no transverse electromagnetic radiation inside a solid. Placement of the thermometer inside an enclosure does not exclude the LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs due to GHG molecule collisions.
    Thus, differentiation over time of the liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer proxies for temperature measures the sum of all three anomalies but differentiation over time of the microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere at the example elevation of 2m measures only the molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy) anomaly with the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure as described. In order for the MSU/AMSU to measure the same physical aspect as a liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer it would be necessary to calibrate with the warm target being atmospheric gases in close proximity to a solid whose temperature is measured by platinum-resistance thermometers, or a compensating adjustment could be made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR energy + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere.
    Please inform whether:
    1) I’m misunderstanding the physics, or
    2) I’m not including another aspect of STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure that deals with this issue, or
    3) A compensating adjustment for this is made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere, or
    4) The ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere is so negligible (far less than uncertainties) that no compensating adjustment for it is required for analysis such as RSS and UAH.

    • grindupbaker Says:

      Non-topic minor note: I’ve since discovered that STAR acronym is not part of the MSU/AMSU instrumentation acronym, it’s an acronym for NOAA/NESDIS analysis a data (a 3rd one additional to RSS & UAH).

  6. neilrieck Says:

    The proof of climate change is the increased rate of sea level rise. New averages from 1870-2004 show that sea level rose 1.7 mm per year. However, current satellites show that then annual rate-of-rise is 3.4 mm per year. Multiplying by 100 yields 340 mm or 13.4 inches per century. So imaging my surprise when I say these two articles showing that the global averages I just published are four times as bad for the USA.


    • J4Zonian Says:

      If you want proof, geometry and whiskey are good places to look. There’s no proof in science; it works on evidence, and the evidence for climate catastrophe is overwhelming precisely because it’s phenomenally varied. SLR, satellite data, 4 surface temperature systems, ice cores, tree rings, geological stratigraphy, data provided by physics, chemistry, biology, atmospheric science, ecology, entomology, dendrology, plant physiology, palynology, hydrology, botany, zoology, herpetology, and dozens of other specialties are all included. And then stick a “paleo” in front of about 3/4 of those and add those to the list, too.

  7. neilrieck Says:

    Roy Spencer’s numbers seem to be related to Roy Spencer’s satellite experiment at NASA, which I have always found a little troublesome. That technology looked at the EM radiation from Oxygen then attempted to extrapolate a temperature. (since the sensors were on the side, you were looking into a lot of side atmosphere from high to low). Other problems added other issues. For example, Roy’s satellite was not equipped with GPS which meant that you did not know where the satellite was so that needed to be calculated as well. Spencer and Christy submitted an article for SCIENCE in 2003 but refused to publish the math. Their article came out in 2005 and around that time that the math had been leaked online. RSS (California) discovered algebraic errors (including one term with a reversed sign) which changes everything in the position calculation. Spencer and Christy apologized for the errors in the letters area of the September-2005 issue of SCIENCE but Spencer never mentioned a thing about this when he was on the Rush Limbaugh radio show several times in the fall of 2005.

    Here is a copy of the paper that RSS (Mears and Wentz) published to set the record straight:

    Click to access mears_science_2005.pdf

    Too much math? Then read a simpler explanation here:

  8. redskylite Says:

    “NASA has proven what is driving climate change through direct observations — a gold standard in scientific research. ”


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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: