From: Watts Up With That

By: Jim Steele

Date: October 28, 2022

Climate Fear Mongering Bad Analyses Cause Bad Remedies

A review of how the media has been fear mongering a fabricated climate crisis which is only misdirecting and obscuring the best remedies needed to address environmental issues, and instead promoting solutions that are ultimately dangerous.

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.

Transcript below.

Thanks for having me here. First, I am not a climate scientist. I am an ecologist, and I humbly note ecology requires a higher degree of thinking to untangle the many contributing causes of complex problems.

While director of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, I was monitored 6 meadow systems in the Sierra Nevada for the Forest Service. One meadow began to dry, vegetation withered, and wildlife began disappearing. When I showed students and colleagues this meadow’s deterioration, I was struck by their knee jerk response. Despite just a half-hour visit, most declared this was just what global warming theory predicted. Rising CO2 was making the land warmer, drier and causing animals to go extinct. (continue reading)

Climate Fear Mongering Bad Analyses Cause Bad Remedies

We have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving and much to be concerned about as well.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to increased agricultural productivity, which is essential to feed our growing population.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to global greening, both by increasing tree and plant growth and by making plants more efficient in their use of available water.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to modest warming and has not resulted in the far greater warming predicted by the climate models.

We can be thankful that the modest warming has manifested primarily as warmer minimum temperatures rather than as increased maximum temperatures.

We can be thankful that the predicted increases in the frequency, intensity and duration of adverse weather events such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods and heat waves have not occurred.

We can be thankful that the modest rate of increase of sea level which began toward the end of the Little Ice Age has continued, contrary to predictions of much more rapid rise which might have submerged islands and inundated low-lying coastal communities.

We can be thankful that ongoing research indicates that our climate is less sensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 than had been predicted.

Finally, we can be thankful that there is no evidence of a current or impending climate “crisis”, or that the current climate change represents an “existential threat” to our survival or the survival of the planet, or that there is scientific justification for declaring a climate “state of emergency”.

We should be concerned about efforts to unnecessarily and rapidly transition our energy economy from reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear energy, hydroelectric and geothermal generation to reliance on intermittent renewable forms of generation such as wind and solar combined with yet-to-be-developed long-duration storage and/or as yet undefined “Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources”.

We should be concerned about the pace of decommissioning of the conventional generation resources required to provide backup generation during periods of renewable generation intermittency.

We should be concerned about the reliance of intermittent renewable generation and storage systems on materials controlled largely by unfriendly and aggressive foreign nations and produced frequently by child and slave labor in unhealthy working conditions.

We should be concerned about the continued affordability of energy in the US economy and about the continued reliability of our energy supply and energy delivery infrastructure.

We should be concerned about our growing reliance on energy supplies from unfriendly foreign nations.

We should be concerned about our government’s efforts to destroy a US industry which is essential to the continued supply of reliable and affordable energy.

We should be concerned about our government’s efforts to prohibit the production and sale of internal combustion engine vehicles and force their replacement with electric vehicles. We should be particularly concerned about the government’s intent to force a transition from diesel engine transit and school buses to electric buses in light of the numerous spontaneous battery fires which have rapidly destroyed transit buses in Germany, France, China and the US.

Finally, we should be concerned about the growing fascism of our government as it advances its climate change agenda.

By: Mark Moss

Precautionary Principle: An expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity-proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.

Murphy's Law: An observation: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Environmental activists have frequently asserted the Precautionary Principle as the basis for immediate and aggressive actions to limit climate change despite the manifold uncertainties in climate science’s projections of future climate conditions. Their approach frequently appears to be based in part on Murphy’s Law.

While environmental activists have been very vocal regarding the uncertain, projected future dangers of climate change based on the outputs of unverified climate models, they have been far less vocal regarding the clear and present dangers of Lithium battery fires, both in EVs and in grid-scale storage installations.

Fortunately, there appear not to have been any fatalities in EV fires, except when the vehicle was involved in a crash. However, there have been numerous instances of spontaneous vehicle fires, some during charging and others when the vehicle was parked. There also appear to have been no fatalities in EV transit bus fires, which have occurred both when the buses were being charged and when they were parked waiting to begin a scheduled route. (here, here and here) There have been no reported battery fires in transit buses while carrying passengers. There have so far been no reported incidents of battery fires in EV school buses.

A fire aboard the trans-Atlantic vehicle ship Felicity Ace, which was carrying approximately 4,000 vehicles including numerous EVs, destroyed the ship and its cargo. The cause of the fire is uncertain, though it appears likely that a spontaneous EV battery fire was the cause. EV batteries were certainly a major contributor to the fire, which the ship’s crew were not able to control.

There have also been Lithium battery fires in grid-scale storage batteries. (here, here) In both cases, these incidents appear to have been triggered by malfunctions of the battery cooling systems.

Numerous owners and operators are considering banning parking and charging of EVs in parking structures, including the basements of apartment complexes and shopping centers because of the fire risk and the extreme difficulty of extinguishing Lithium battery fires.

It would seem that environmental activists promoting the application of the Precautionary Principle regarding potential future climate change should be at least as concerned regarding the clear and present danger of EV battery fires. There is no urgent need to adopt EVs for a variety of uses until the issue of spontaneous battery fires has been addressed and resolved. These fires are a particular concern in school buses and transit buses because the fires are so intense and spread so quickly that evacuation might be hindered or even prevented. This is also the case for parking and charging EVs under apartment buildings.

From: Clintel

By: Guus Berkhout

Date: October, 2022

There is No Climate Emergency, a Message to the People

In the past decades the public has been flooded with fear-mongering stories, telling them that global temperatures will rise to catastrophically high levels.

Climate activists claim that the cause of all this impending doom is the increasing amount of CO2 produced by human activities. The proposed solution is the so-called net-zero emission policy, aimed at lowering human net CO2-emissions to the levels of the pre-industrial era of the late 1700s.

Those activists also claim that people should panic, and that time is running out: “Be aware that it is five minutes to midnight, we must act without delay!” Many thousands of scientists disagree; More than 1400 are Clintel signatories.

In his numerous ‘last warning’ speeches, Antonio Guterres refers to computer simulations, not the real world. Greta Thunberg testified to the US Congress that there was ‘no science’ behind her ‘panic’ comment.  This info cannot be found in the media.

So why is there such a big difference between the scaring climate activists’ narrative and the optimistic climate scientists’ message, who believe there is no climate emergency? Please, before you continue reading, watch our message: Consensus meet CLINTEL

Not many citizens are aware that all the frightening climate predictions have been generated by computer models. And we know from experience in many other complex areas, how misleading computer models can be.

For example, think of the many wrong predictions by economic models or think of the large mistakes in recent pandemic modeling. The output of computer models depends fully on the assumptions that modelmakers put into them. In the past 50 years, the predictions of climate models about global warming and their dire effects have all been wrong. In the engineering community, they would be qualified as useless. (continue reading)

There is No Climate Emergency, a Message to the People

Dominion Energy has proposed to build Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) a 176 wind turbine farm off the Virginia coast. The Virginia Legislature had predetermined that such a project was in the public interest. The Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) has approved a rate increase related to funding of CVOW, though many project details remain to be finalized and many environmental approvals are outstanding.

The rating plate generating capacity of CVOW is 2.6 GW. Project output would be expected to range from 0 GW to 2.6 GW. The International Energy Agency estimates an annual capacity factor of 50% for offshore wind turbines. I will use that estimate here, since there is no significant US experience with wind farms off the US East coast. Therefore, CVOW would be expected to generate an annual average of ~1.3 GW, ranging from ~1.6 GW in Winter to ~0.8 GW in Summer.

The daily and seasonal output variations would require significant long-duration storage to allow the output of CVOW to be dispatchable. For example, the stored electricity required to make up the difference between annual average capacity and average summer capacity (1.3 GW – 0.8 GW = 0.5 GW) for a single Summer month would be approximately 372 GWh (0.5 GW * 24 hours/day * 31 days), while the capacity required to make up the difference between average winter capacity and average summer capacity would be approximately 595 GWh (0.8 GW * 24 * 31).

Dominion Energy is the majority owner of the Bath County Pumped Storage Station (BCPSS), which was frequently described as “the largest storage battery in the world”. BCPSS has a generating capacity of 3 GW and a total storage capacity of 24 GWh. Therefore, BCPSS could replace the full capacity of CVOW for approximately 9 hours (24 GWh / 2.6 GW). It would require 15-25 storage stations like BCPSS to render CVOW dispatchable seasonally based on storage capacity.

Construction of a pumped storage facility with the capacity of BCPSS would cost approximately $4 billion, or approximately $160 per kWh ($4,000,000,000 / 24,000,000 kWh), or approximately half the NREL estimated cost of battery storage. The cost of each new storage station would be approximately 40% of the estimated cost of CVOW.

Of course, the above calculations are all estimates since all of the inputs to the calculations are estimates. However, the largest uncertainty regarding the overall project is the amount of storage capacity which would be required in the Dominion Energy grid to maximize the value of the contribution of CVOW on an annual basis. Determining the optimal storage capacity would require a detailed analysis of the generating capacity mix planned for the future Dominion Energy renewable plus storage grid, including allowances for load growth resulting from population increases and from accommodating the federal goal of Net Zero by 2050.

The 2050 Net Zero Dominion Energy grid would be expected to exhibit annual electricity demand and consumption approximately 4 times current demand and consumption. That would be a massive technical and economic challenge.

From: Master Resource

By: Robert Bradley Jr.

Date: October 12, 2022

‘Deep Optimism Manifesto’ (David Siegel’s cure for ‘climate anxiety’)

David Siegel is a man with a message. His Deep Optimism Manifesto spells out a new approach to viewing the world that is at once realistic and optimistic. Written last year, its message is timeless and timely. His opening quotation comes from Julian Simon’s essay in The State of Humanity, p. 642.

I am writing this in response to the Ecomodernism manifesto. It’s a group of smart people doing very important work to help improve the future for humanity and nature.

I think if they looked more into the science of climate change and the economics of abundance, they would arrive at Deep Optimism, a term coined by Matt Ridley, the rational optimist.

People who understand the economics of abundance don’t apply enough critical thinking to understanding climate and the natural world (Hans Rosling, Bjorn Lomborg, Peter Diamandis, Tyler Cowen, Steven Pinker). They take model projections of doom and gloom at face value, which dampens their message of abundance.

Here I present the basic principles as I see them. (Opinions expressed here are my own.)

In a Nutshell

Capitalism works. Capitalism does more to help the world than the UN, World Economic Forum, Club of Rome, NASA, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and a long list of clueless celebrities put together. Capitalism helps humans escape poverty and improve the environment. There are a few incentive problems to address, but here is the track record so far … (continue reading)

‘Deep Optimism Manifesto’ (David Siegel’s cure for ‘climate anxiety’)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken

The UN and the governments of several nations in western Europe, North America and Australia and the media in those nations have labeled climate change “Code Red”, a “crisis”, an “existential threat” and an “emergency”. They have blamed anthropogenic CO2 emissions for climate change. They have blamed climate change for sea level rise, glacier retreat, heat waves, cold waves, droughts, floods, increased frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones and tornadoes. These assertions are not supported by the IPCC Working Group reports. They are supported, to some extent, by the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which is a political rather than a scientific document.

These efforts have so far not accomplished the desired alarm among their populations. Recent polls place climate change at or near the bottom of the list of concerns among their populations. Polling indicates that their populations would be interested in or even willing to take various actions to slow climate change, though there is little or no willingness to pay additional taxes or pay more for energy in the process.

This lack of enthusiastic population response has led governments to take actions which cause inconvenience, pain and suffering for their populations. The US government’s actions intended to limit the supplies of oil and natural gas in the economy have resulted in a doubling of the prices for these commodities. The rapid increase in gasoline prices has stressed people’s budgets but is having the effect of reducing gasoline consumption as people decide to drive less to reduce expenses. The decrease in natural gas availability and the resulting increase in natural gas prices has resulted in an increase in electricity prices as the quantity of gas available in the spot market decreases.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. - Groucho Marx

Politicians looking for an issue which would alarm a relatively comfortable and secure populace discovered global warming, then global cooling, then global warming again. This reversal led to a refocus on climate change. They then found climate change everywhere, in sea level rise, glacial retreat, droughts, floods, tropical cyclones and tornadoes. They diagnosed these troubles as resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions, though sea level rise and glacial retreat have been occurring at least since the end of the Little Ice Age and droughts, floods, tropical cyclones and tornadoes have been recurring weather events since long before anthropogenic global warming began.

Politicians then decided that the solution to this trouble they found was replacing the use of fossil fuels in their economies with wind and solar electric generation, backed up with electricity storage. In doing so, they chose to ignore the intermittency of these generation technologies and the unavailability of the storage technology required to assure a stable and reliable electric grid. The result has been increased electricity prices and reduced electricity reliability.

From: RealClear Energy

By: Joseph Toomey

Date: September, 2022

Energy Inflation Was by Design

FOREWORD
by Rupert Darwall

The West is experiencing its third energy crisis. The first, in 1973, was caused by the near-quintupling of the price of crude oil by Gulf oil producers in response to America’s support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war. Their action brought an end to what the French call the trente glorieuses-the unprecedented post-World War II economic expansion. The second occurred at the end of the 1970s, when Iran’s Islamic revolution led to a more than doubling of oil prices. This again inflicted great economic hardship, but the policy response was far better. Inflation was purged at the cost of deep recession. Energy markets were permitted to function. High oil prices induced substitution effects, particularly in the power sector, and stimulated increased supply. In the space of nine months, the oil price cratered from $30 a barrel in November 1985 to $10 a barrel in July 1986. It’s no wonder that the economic expansion that started under Ronald Reagan had such long legs.

This time is different. The third energy crisis was not sparked by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies or by Iranian ayatollahs. It was self-inflicted, a foreseeable outcome of policy choices made by the West: Germany’s disastrous Energiewende that empowered Vladimir Putin to launch an energy war against Europe; Britain’s self-regarding and self-destructive policy of “powering past coal” and its decision to ban fracking; and, as Joseph Toomey shows in his powerful essay, President Biden’s war on the American oil and gas industry.

Hostilities were declared during Joe Biden’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. “I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel,” candidate Biden told a climate activist in September 2019, words that the White House surely hopes get lost down a memory hole. Toomey’s paper has all the receipts, so there’s no danger of that. As he observes, Biden’s position in 2022 resembles Barack Obama’s in 2012, when rising gas prices threatened to sink his reelection. Obama responded with a ruthlessness that his erstwhile running mate lacks. He simply stopped talking about climate and switched to an all-of-theabove energy policy, shamelessly claiming credit for the fracking revolution that his own EPA tried to strangle at birth.(continue reading)

Energy Inflation Was by Design

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Winston Churchill

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

History: a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes
Merriam-Webster

History does not repeat itself identically because too many factors surrounding events differ or are subject to change during and after the events. History is easier to understand the more recent it is because more detail regarding an event is available for analysis and the factors surrounding the event have had less time to change. The ideal situation is the ability to analyze a series of events as they unfold in real-time, on their way to becoming history.

We currently have the opportunity to analyze several series of events regarding the transition from conventional sources of energy to renewable plus storage energy systems based on wind and solar generation. These series of events have occurred in two different states in the US and in two different nations in Western Europe. While each series of events was and is impacted by a unique set of surrounding factors, they share several common characteristics.

Each series of events involved aggressive introduction of renewable generation, while virtually ignoring electricity storage and relying on conventional generation to provide backup power when the intermittent renewable generation was either unavailable or operating below rating plate capacity.

Each series of events involved premature closure of conventional generating capacity, primarily coal and nuclear generation, thus reducing the backup capability of the remaining conventional generation.

Each series of events involved an unusual, but not unprecedented, weather event which significantly reduced the availability of the intermittent renewable generation capacity for a period of several days. These weather events included wind droughts in California and western Europe and unusually cold weather in Texas.

Each of these series of events has been accompanied by a significant increase in electric energy prices, despite government assurances that the transition to renewable generation would reduce electricity prices. These price increases are largely the result of the fact that the renewable generation is redundant capacity, since it continues to require equivalent conventional generation capacity as backup.

The consequences of these series of events in Western Europe have been aggravated by Russian reductions in natural gas deliveries, which then reduced the available natural gas combined-cycle generation output. This has resulted in numerous business and industry closures or output reductions due to reduced competitiveness or insufficient energy availability. Several Western European nations have altered planned conventional generation closures and begun reopening closed conventional generation.

States and nations which have not yet experienced similar series of events and their effects have the opportunity to learn from this history as it unfolds around them in real-time. Scheduled conventional generation plant closures are being deferred and expansion of electricity storage capacity is being re-evaluated. Continuing to do the same things is being questioned.

From: Energy Talking Points

By: Alex Epstein

Date: October 5, 2022

25 myths about extreme weather, refuted

With Hurricane Ian, the media have once again put forward the narrative that fossil fuels make extreme weather danger worse—and that fossil fuel supporters like Governor Ron Desantis are to blame.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Myth 1: The world is experiencing unprecedented danger from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels.

Truth: The world is experiencing unprecedented safety from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels—because fossil fuels' climate mastery benefits overwhelm any negative climate side-effects.

Myth 2: The media and its designated experts are accurately reporting on fossil fuels and extreme weather.

Truth: The media and its “experts” are:
1. totally ignoring how fossil fuels make us safer than ever from extreme weather
2. wildly overstating fossil fuels' negative impact on weather.

Myth 3: The effect of fossil fuels on extreme weather danger is solely negative.

Truth: Not only can warming from fossil fuels have significant benefits (fewer cold deaths) but the low-cost energy fossil fuels provide for billions gives us an unprecedented ability to master extreme weather. (continue reading)

25 myths about extreme weather, refuted

“That's why I think we need to recognize it has to be about innovation instead. If we focus on making green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it, then we can get everybody on board, and we can do so very, very cheaply. So, we can spend less money and do much more good by investing in research and development, rather than focusing on what has failed for the last 20 years”. - Bjorn Lomborg

Energy has been a critical factor in improving humans’ quality of life and lifespan. Lomborg has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the availability of adequate energy, clean water and sanitation to improve the quality of life in developing nations. He has also criticized the developed nations’ focus on investments in current technology intermittent renewable electricity generation, which he views as relatively less important.

Lomborg’s focus on innovation to make “green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it” makes eminent good sense. Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of the path being followed by the UN, EU, UK, US, Canada and Australia. The UN is demanding and the developed nations are forcing an accelerated conversion of their energy economies to reliance on intermittent wind, solar and electricity storage. These conversions are being driven, not by citizen demand, but rather by legislation and regulations requiring replacement of fossil fuels for all energy end uses with renewable generation and storage. They are also being supported by government incentives which have been available for decades.

This enforced transition has resulted in dramatic increases in energy prices in these countries, despite government and developer assertions that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity. It is also leading to impending shortages of energy, energy consumption restrictions and electric grid unreliability and instability. These issues are also being aggravated in Western Europe by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s use of the natural gas it sells to those nations as a geopolitical bargaining tool, reducing gas deliveries below contracted volumes.

The current situation, rather than “making green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it”, is making green energy so expensive that eventually no one will want it. In the process, it is also making fossil fuel generation more expensive, since fossil generators are required to provide backup for the intermittent renewables when they are not generating, causing the fossil generators to be operated for fewer hours and to generate less power while their fixed costs remain constant.

The same governments are also forcing a transition to electric vehicles, again driven by legislation and supported by incentives for vehicle purchase and for installation of vehicle charging stations. However, the EVs are more expensive than internal combustion engine vehicles and there are growing concerns about battery cost and life. EVs have also been plagued recently by a rash of battery fires in personal vehicles, light trucks and transit buses. These fires spread rapidly and are virtually impossible to extinguish. Several jurisdictions are considering banning parking and charging EVs in parking structures because of this issue.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Nicola Scafetta

Date: September 25, 2022

CMIP6 GCMs versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion

Two publications examining the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have recently been published in Climate Dynamics:

Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures.

Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence.

These two papers are significant because they take different but complimentary approaches and achieve the same result – ECS <3°C. Scafetta (2022a) extends and confirm Scafetta (2022b) previously published in GRL.

Lewis study was discussed in a previous post, let us here briefly present the main findings of Scafetta (2022).

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (phase 6) (CMIP6) global circulation (GCM) models project equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values ranging from 1.8 to 5.7°C. To reduce this range, the 38 GCM were divided into low (1.5<ECS<3.0 °C), medium (3.0<ECS<4.5°C), and high (4.5<ECs<6.0°C) ECS subgroups and their accuracy and precision were evaluated in hindcasting the average global surface warming observed from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021. The study used global surface temperature records are ERA5-T2m, HadCRUT5, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and the satellite-based lower troposphere global temperature UAH-MSU lt v6 record was added as well. (continue reading)

CMIP6 GCMs versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion

Observing and analyzing climate and climate change is an interesting experiment. The experimentalist can establish the events and characteristics to be observed and/or measured, the timing of the start of the observation period and the timing of the end of the observation period. However, the experimentalist has no control over the design of the experiment, which has been ongoing since before the observation period and will continue after the end of the observation period.

The observation of the climate experiment must be conducted and recorded with extreme care, since the experiment cannot be repeated in the event of an observational or measurement problem. Missed observations and unmeasured or inaccurate data cannot be replaced by running another test, since the test conditions cannot be duplicated. No period during the duration of the experiment will ever reoccur.

Weather has been of concern to humans because of the positive and negative impacts it has on their lives. Instrumental monitoring of temperature began with the Central England Temperature record in the mid-1600s, expanded to the US and several other countries by the mid-1800s and became nearly global in the mid-1900s. Satellite monitoring of global tropospheric temperature began in 1979. Regular monitoring of precipitation began in the mid-1700s and became nearly global in the mid-1900s. Extensive regular monitoring of sea level began in the early 1900s. Instrumental monitoring of atmospheric CO2 concentrations began in the mid-1950s. The global instrumental record is relatively short (~70 years) and still does not provide complete coverage. However, it is the basis upon which the theory of anthropogenic climate change has been developed; and, the basis upon which the climate models and the model projections of future climate change have been developed.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change, as exemplified by the outputs of the various CMIP6 climate models, does not agree well with the experiment, as exemplified by comparison of the projections of the models and observations, as shown below in a series of graphs from a paper co-authored by Ross McKittrick and John Christy, shown below.

Figure 3 - Trends and 95% CIs for individual models (red dots and thin bars), CMIP6 mean (red dot and thick bar), and observational series (blue). Horizontal dashed line shows mean satellite trend.

Clearly, the projections of the global and tropical temperature anomaly trends produced by the CMIP6 climate models do not agree well with the observational data series. Therefore, by Feynman’s criteria, they are wrong. The CMIP6 model ensemble has falsified itself, as was the case with the CMIP5 models. The CMIP6 models projected temperature anomaly changes as much as four times the observed temperature anomaly changes.

Clearly, if the theory is wrong, as embodied in the CMIP6 climate models, it is not a reasonable basis for precipitous climate actions, as are being insisted upon by the UN and implemented by numerous nations. It is essential that an accurate theory be developed and tested before precipitous climate actions are implemented unnecessarily.

By: Tom Nelson