by James Murphy, The New American:
A new report released on Thursday is calling into question the ability of climate models to accurately predict the warming of the Earth theorized by climate alarmists. Dr. Roy Spencer, the principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, issued the report disputing the notion that any observed warming in the Earth’s vast climate system must be attributed solely to human activity via greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels.
Furthermore, Spencer’s research finds that the climate models that governments use to promote the use of renewable energy sources instead of the more reliable fossil fuels are inherently flawed and vastly overestimate the role of mankind’s fossil fuel emissions. According to Spencer, actual observed warming of the atmosphere averages 43 percent less than computer models predict.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
For example, Spencer notes that in temperature trend observations of the 12-state U.S. Corn Belt from 1973 until 2022, actual observations ran cooler than 36 climate models predicting temperatures for the same area.
“The observed warming is much weaker than that produced by all 36 climate models surveyed here,” Spencer’s report noted. “While the cause of this relatively benign warming could theoretically be entirely due to humanity’s production of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, this claim cannot be demonstrated through science. At least some of the measured warming could be natural.”
By the way, the observed warming for that period was less than 0.2° Celsius — models had predicted warming as high as 0.8° Celsius.
There is no climate crisis!
As my colleague Dr. Roy Spencer shows in our latest report, the observed rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been WEAKER than predicted by almost all climate models.
Somebody tell John Kerry @Heritage @KevinMooneyDC @DFR_Economics pic.twitter.com/ujm4sjP2kC
— Kevin D. Dayaratna, Ph.D. (@kdd0211) January 24, 2024
Among the key takeaways from Spencer’s report:
The observed rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been weaker than that predicted by almost all computerized climate models.
Climate models that guide energy policy do not even conserve energy, a necessary condition for any physically based model of the climate system.
Public policy should be based on climate observations—which are rather unremarkable—rather than climate models that exaggerate climate impacts.
Members of the climate cult prefer attacking Spencer’s character, calling him a “climate denier,” among other things, rather than looking at the data. Meanwhile, fellow climate scientists are praising his work.
“Nothing in Dr. Spencer’s analysis surprises me,” said Dr. H. Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy for the Heartland Institute. “It has long been clear that the climate models don’t accurately reflect reality. Even the scientists and modelers most involved in them have been forced to admit in the past that they run way too hot. Dr. Spencer’s work forcefully confirms this.”
In Burnett’s view, it isn’t only that the climate models are flawed, but that they fail to accurately portray the one thing they are meant to — climate sensitivity to mankind’s emissions.
Read More @ TheNewAmerican.com
