By Chris Morrison
February 21st 2020
Disturbing evidence is starting to emerge that IPCC climate modellers are planning to jack up the improbable fireball temperature predictions caused by humans burning fossil fuel. As a result the UN’s report due next year could exacerbate climate hysteria following its enormous success in 2018 in reducing – with no scientific basis whatsoever – its King Canute suggestion that the maximum global temperature rise must fall from 2C to 1.5C.
According to a recent academic paper from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Canada, many of the latest generation climate models are predicting more warming from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere due to refinements of the effect of cloud. It found 19 of the 35 models showed an average rise of 3.9C, up from the previous generation’s figure of 3.3C. According to Lawrence Livermore it is crucial to establish whether the latest models are “providing a more realistic picture of future climate warming”.
They could hardly be worse. Over the last 30 years, over 100 models have been consistently wrong, often grossly over estimating the warming effect of C02 in the atmosphere, whether the 3% caused by humans or the 97% that arises from natural causes. And as usual the actual temperature refuses to play ball with the fanciful forecasts. It’s not much of a “climate emergency” when all you can point to is around 1C rise over the last 200 years – a figure replicated countless times in the past. Not only that but the ”around 1C” has been hanging around for the last two decades or more.
In the 30 years that climate models have been spewing out their incorrect figures, the global temperature has paused from 1998 to around 2014, spiked a little due to a strong El Nino and now could be pausing again. Last month, Met Office figures showed the 2010s were colder in the UK than the 2000s while last year in the US was only the 33rd warmest since 1895, beaten by the ‘whew what a scorcher” year of 1900. All this time CO2 has gently risen to around 400ppm, a figure that is still very low compared to many periods in the past.
The temperature figures are an inconvenience since the 2018 IPCC report was so helpful in boosting climate alarm and persuading Greta, David and some of the world’s least informed politicians that they must drive their populations back to pre-industrial times by removing the one efficient fuel available. The green troughers’ bandwagon was given an almighty push when it was estimated that over $100tn would need to be spent developing useless, environment destroying green energy and pathetic range-limited electric cars more suitable for a milk round than serious human transportation.
Of course raising the possibility of even higher CO2 driven temperatures means that the IPCC could argue we have even less time than previously thought to divvy up the dosh and move to “net zero” emissions. “It’s a bit too early to get wound up”, says John Fyfle from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling, but “maybe we have to face a reality in the future that’s more pessimistic than it was in the past”.
Presumably Mr Fyfle is referring to an imaginary past and a future reality that exists only within the algorithms of a super computer. Computers that in the past have produced gospel from incorrect data and garbage suppositions. The fact is that real scientists – folks who study subjects such as chemistry and physics – cannot agree on what effect extra CO2 has in the chaotic atmosphere.
Some say it causes some warming, others that it has little effect but helps greatly in plant and species development. It is a science hypothesis that is unproven. Calling the matter “settled”, refusing to even talk about it and trusting to inaccurate, unreliable climate models is an insult to the intelligence.
Since global temperatures are proving such an unreliable ally in the Great Green War on humanity, attention has been turned to blaming every weather event on the climate changing. Again this is a hefty insult to the intelligence since “100 year records” are available to be cherry picked across the globe on an almost daily basis.
It’s an insult for the simple reason that “weather” is not “climate”. Or so we thought. A paper published last month by among others Dr Reto Knutti, an IPCC lead author, has the headline: “Climate change now detectable from any single day of weather at global scale”.
According to the Knutti theory, “the fingerprint of climate change is detected from any single day in the observed global record since early 2012, and since 1999 on the basis of a year of data”.
Never let it be thought that the tsunami of money that has poured into state-sponsored climate “science” has been wasted when such ground breaking – and it must be noted useful – work is published.
Quite why the BBC and Guardian haven’t given this story any prominence is a mystery. Abolishing the difference between weather and climate would seem to validate almost their entire eco crackpot editorial output.
Please follow Chris on twitter @CMorrisonEsq