Month: May 2024

CMIP6 Runs Running Wild

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Well, for my usual unfathomable reasons and motives, I decided to take a look at individual model runs from the Computer Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6).

And again, for no particular reason, I took a look at the three NOAA GFDL GFDL-ESM4 climate model runs prepared for the CMIP6 all-forcing simulation of the recent past. These are all available at the marvelous KNMI website. And here’s what those three runs look like.

Figure 1. Three model runs of the NOAA GFDL GFDL-ESM4 climate model. These are of the SSP245 scenario. The vertical black line shows the 2014 end of the hindcast period and the start of the following forecast period.

Umm … err … seriously? Three runs of the same climate model using the same forcings and starting conditions and inputs are that far apart when trying to hindcast the past? I mean, not even trying to forecast the future, just trying to hindcast the past?

And the climate establishment wants us to believe that these are anything more than a pathetic joke?

But wait, as they say on TV … there’s more!

Here is the actual Berkeley Earth historical record, compared to the three model runs.

Figure 2. Three model runs of the NOAA GFDL GFDL-ESM4 climate model, plus the Berkeley Earth historical temperature Jan 1850 to Dec 2023.

Not much else to say about that … except that anyone depending on these climate models to tell us what’s going to happen in the future should know that they can’t even tell us what happened in the past …

My best to all, take a walk, enjoy your lives,

w.

Yeah, you’ve heard it before: When you comment please quote the exact words you are referring to. And if you want to prove me wrong, you might want to read this first.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/ehc8DO6

May 3, 2024 at 01:04PM

Climatism Substitutes for Solving Problems

Cambridge professor Mike Hulme explains in an interview with Daily Mail Why climate change ISN’T going to end the world and why we need to stop obsessing about net-zero.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H\T John Ray

Young people are terrified that climate change will destroy Earth by the time they grow up, but the world is not actually ending, argues Cambridge professor Mike Hulme.

Humanity is not teetering on a cliff’s edge, he says,
at risk of imminent catastrophe if we don’t reach
net-zero carbon emissions by a certain date.

And he has made it his mission to call out the people who claim we are. In his most recent book, Climate Change Isn’t Everything, Hulme argued that belief in the urgent fight against climate change has shot far past the territory of science and become an ideology.

Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge, dubs this ideology ‘climatism,’ and he argues that it can distort the way society approaches the world’s ills, placing too much focus on slowing Earth from warming.

The problem, he said, is this narrow focus takes attention away from
other important moral, ethical, and political objectives –
like helping people in the developing world rise out of poverty.

DailyMail.com spoke with Hulme about why he thinks climatism is a problem, how it should be balanced out, and what keeps him hopeful about the future of humanity.

As with other ‘isms’ – like cubism or romanticism – ideologies provide a way of thinking about things, explained Hulme.  ‘They’re like spectacles that help us to make sense of the world, according to a predefined framework or structure,’ he said

To be clear, Hulme does not claim that all ideologies are wrong.  ‘We all need ideologies, and we all have them – whether you’re a Marxist or a nationalist, you’re likely to hold an ideology of some form or other,’ he added.

As Hulme sees it, many journalists, advocates, and casual observers of climate change have become devotees of climatism, inaccurately attributing many events that happen in the world as being caused by climate change.

He gives the examples of a fire, flood, or damaging hurricane.  ‘No matter how complex a particular causal chain might be, it’s a very convenient shorthand to say, ‘Oh, well, this was caused by climate change,” Hulme said.

‘It’s a very shallow and simplistic way, I would argue,
to try to describe events that are happening in the world.’

Researchers have shown that warming oceans do lead to more frequent and more severe storms: Twice as many cyclones now become category 4 or 5 as they did in the 1970s, scientists have found, and Atlantic storms are three times as likely to become hurricanes.

Hulme doesn’t argue that the effects of climate change are not happening, though, just that stopping climate change won’t stop disasters from happening altogether.

‘Fundamentally, we’re going to have to deal with hurricanes, and
we’re not going to deal with them just by cutting our carbon emissions.’ 

The solutions, he argues, will include better forecasting, better early warning systems, better emergency plans, and better infrastructure.  ‘There are all sorts of things that we can do to minimize the risks and dangers of hurricanes, that are way more effective in the short term than trying to cut our carbon emissions,’ said Hulme.

The danger of climatism, he pointed out, is that it leads people down a false chain of events: If all of these things happening in the world are caused by climate change, then all we have to do is stop climate change, and all the other things will stop themselves.

‘And that clearly is a very inadequate way of thinking about the complexities of most of the problems we we face in the world today.’  This distorted thinking can make people forget about other important concerns, he argues.

As an example, Hulme points to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 17 areas that the world’s governments have identified as top priorities for humanity.  The SDGs include building peace and justice, eradicating poverty, reducing child mortality, and ensuring clean sanitation and water for billions of people on the planet.

If society were to put climate change priorities into their proper proportions then, Hulme said it would still be on the list.  It just wouldn’t be the only item on the list, and it wouldn’t be at the top.  ‘There’s 17 SDGs, and two of them are related to climate. So that begins to rebalance, or re-proportion, the amount of effort and attention we might wish to pay,’ said Hulme.

Beyond these mixed up priorities, Hulme also takes issue with what he sees as an obsession with deadlines: ‘There’s this idea of the ticking clock counting down to Ground Zero – we’ve only got five years, 10 years, two years – however long different commentators put the deadline.’

Doomsday was predicted but failed to happen at midnight.

Hulme disputed the idea that he is over-egging the pudding on climatism – after all, the whole basis of his argument is that climatists are the ones making a bigger deal out of it than they should be.  ‘I’ve been observing concerns about how climate change is talked about, framed, and reacted to in public for many, many years.’  And this public framing has led to a phenomenon called ‘eco-anxiety,’ which Hulme said he sees among his students at Cambridge University

‘They have absorbed these claims of tipping points, and they take these things literally, and feel that there is no future for them because the climate is going to go out of control,’ he said. ‘They feel that it will be too late, and everything will collapse.’

See Also Climate Delusional Disorder

Climate Delusional Disorder (CDD) 2021 Update

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/BUPQH0F

May 3, 2024 at 11:49AM

ClimateTV – At last, a real debate – THE DUEL OF THE THEORIES ON GLOBAL WARMING

On episode 108 of The Climate Realism Show, special guest James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute and the founding director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy, presents data refuting multiple climate change myths.

James recently took part in a debate called “THE DUEL OF THE THEORIES ON GLOBAL WARMING” with Professor Harold R. Wanless, professor in the Department of Geography and Sustainable Development at the University of Miami and author of The Invading Sea. Taylor covers topics such as global temperatures, sea level rise, crop production, hurricanes, and tornadoes, citing data from peer-reviewed sources in the process.

Join host Anthony Watts, and The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett as we do some play-by-play analysis. Plus, as always, the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (12 p.m. CT) for the kind of climate realism you can’t find anywhere else, and join the chat to get your questions answered, too.

WATCH LIVE (or the recording later) HERE.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3jMWimR

May 3, 2024 at 11:36AM

UK Government defeated in High Court over climate plans – as usual


Time for yet another revised ‘net zero emissions’ plan. Whether any country that used to depend largely on fuel-burning power stations for electricity can meet the demands of its own time-limited climate plans/targets is open to question. The BBC report once again wheels out the old climate propaganda con trick of pretending that sunset shadow effects are scary pollution clouds in its report image.
– – –
The government has been defeated in court – for a second time – for not doing enough to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, reports BBC News.

Environmental campaigners argued that the energy minister signed off the government’s climate plan without evidence it could be achieved.

The High Court ruled on Friday that the government will now be required to redraft the plan again.

In response the government defended its record on climate action.

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “The UK can be hugely proud of its record on climate change. We do not believe a court case about process represents the best way of driving progress towards our shared goal of reaching net zero.”

The legal challenge was brought by environmental groups Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and The Good Law Project.

Tony Bosworth, lead campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said it was “an embarrassing day for the government”.

Speaking outside the court to BBC News he said: “What we now need to see is a climate plan which is robust, which is comprehensive and which is fair, which makes sure we meet all our climate targets, and which does that in a way which doesn’t leave anybody behind.”

The three groups had previously won a case against the government back in 2022 arguing that its Net Zero Plan was not detailed enough to explain how the UK would cut its emissions – as required by the Climate Change Act.

In response the government produced a plan which laid out how each of its policies would cut emissions.

But the campaigners said the former Energy Secretary Grant Shapps did not consider the risks to deliver the plan and signed it off assuming all the policies would be achieved.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Sheldon said: “It is not possible to ascertain from the materials presented to the Secretary of State which of the proposals and policies would not be delivered at all, or in full.”

Later on Friday, the judge is expected to provide a deadline for reviewing the plan.
. . .
The UK has a target to reduce its emissions by 78% by 2035 against 1990 levels.

Full report here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/79cHxNQ

May 3, 2024 at 11:35AM