The Biden administration’s claim that climate change has put us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based on computer model simulations that have shown average warming rates at least twice as high as the last observed 40+ years.
Almost every climate claim made by politicians and even many vocal scholars was either exaggerated or a lie.
While it’s easy for critics to claim that I’m in the scientific minority (true) or that I’m a climate denier (isn’t it; I’m not denying some level of man-made warming), the fact is that The “official” observations of the last decades contradict the “official” climate models, which are promoted for the purpose of implementing expensive, economically harmful and poverty-worsening energy policies.
Global ocean temperatures are only warming ~ 50% the rate of climate model projections
Today’s example comes from global average sea surface temperatures. The oceans provide our best measure of how quickly additional energy is accumulating in the climate system. Since John Christy and I are working on a project explaining global ocean temperatures using a 1D climate model since the late 19th century, I thought I’d show you how the observations compare to climate model simulations.
The following diagram (Fig. 1) shows the monthly global (60N-60S) average fluctuations in sea surface temperature since 1979 for 68 model simulations from 13 different climate models. The 42-year-old observations since 1979 (bold black line) show that warming occurs much more slowly than the average climate model dictates.
Regarding the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the above sea temperature datasets show warming trends near the bottom of the range of the climate model simulations.
Most of the deep ocean warming could be natural
A related problem is how much the deep oceans are warming. As I mentioned earlier, the (undeniable) energy imbalance associated with deep sea warming over the past few decades is only about 1 part (less than 1 watt per square meter) in 300 of the natural energy flows in the climate system.
This is a very small energy imbalance in the climate system. We know that NONE of the natural energy flows that precisely.
That means global warming can be mostly natural and we wouldn’t even know it.
I am not suggesting that it is. I just want to point out the level of confidence associated with adapting climate models, which necessarily lead to warming due to increased carbon footprint, as these models simply assume that there is no other source of warming.
Yes, more CO2 must lead to some warming. However, the extent of warming makes the difference to global energy policy.
The public is seldom ever informed about these obvious discrepancies between basic research and the statements of politicians and pop scholars.
Why does it matter?
It is important because there is no climate crisis. There is no such thing as a climate emergency.
Yes, there is irregular heating. Yes, it is at least partially due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But rarely is mention made of the benefits of a slightly warmer climate system or the benefits of having more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is necessary for life on earth).
But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s only here in the US – in the meantime, China will always do what is in China’s best interests) then that’s trillions of dollars that are not available for real life needs.
Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.