Scientists Attack Media For Spotlighting A Study Showing IPCC Climate Models Were Wrong

Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann

A climate model expert told The Washington Post there would be “extra eyes really scrutinizing” a new study claiming climate models predicted more global warming than has been observed this century.

And he was right.

Climate scientists have rushed to criticize a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, which found that less warming in the early 20th Century suggests it’s slightly easier — though still difficult — to meet the goals of the Paris accord.

One would think climate scientists, especially those alarmed about warming, would see this as positive, but prominent researchers were quick to express their skepticism of results questioning the integrity of climate models.

Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann told Seeker he was “rather skeptical” of the research. Mann doubted meeting the Paris accord goal of keeping future warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times was impossible without “highly speculative negative emissions technology.”

University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins said media headlines “have misinterpreted” the new study that questioned models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Hawkins contributed to the IPCC’s major 2013 climate report.

“A recent study by Medhaug et al. analyzed the issue of how the models have performed against recent observations at length and largely reconciled the issue,” Hawkins wrote in a blog post.

“An overly simplistic comparison of simulated global temperatures and observations might suggest that the models were warming too much, but this would be wrong for a number of reasons,” Hawkins wrote.

Berkeley Earth climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said the models matched observed global temperatures “quite well.”

Study authors, however, contend the models and observations diverged in the past two decades during what’s been called the “hiatus” — a period of roughly 15 years with little to no rise in global average temperature.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations,” study co-author Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, told The Times on Monday.

“The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions. … So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower,” study co-author Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter said, according to The Washington Post.

The study seemed to confirm claims made by scientists skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming claims that models were showing more warming than actual observations.

For example, Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have noted the climate models have been overhyping warming for decades.

Climate scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been observed.

Read more at Daily Caller

Trackback from your site.

Comments (13)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    All the main-stream liberal leftists news media today is about big broad headlines and fake news telling all this malarkey and poppycock that we al must revert to a primative way of living and return to worshiping earth spirits and sky spirits and water spirits and making the monthly virgin or child sacrifice just like the pre columbus indian’s did

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Michael Mann skeptical ? Well I will bet the scientists can produce their work at least . The models are on average over 200% inaccurate in one direction does that sound like the science is settled ?
    The issue is how did this overblown con job ever get this far based on the strength of grossly inaccurate climate models . The scary global warming industry that includes politicians sold the public a massive lie that continues to waste $ billions . Criminal .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    As many have said in the past, the climate change movement isn’t about the climate. It is an excuse to advance many hidden agendas where climate change is their best hope. To acknowledge that the IPCC models are wrong is very bad news for those who hope that there agenda will come to pass as part of the climate change effort. As such, you can expect strong attacks against what should be good news.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Ve2

    |

    “pre-industrial times”
    I.e. 1750 Little Ice Age, why not 1650 when the Thames froze over, the climate must have been warming for at least 100 years before thestarting point selected by warmists.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    You don’t reject objective data because
    it conflicts with
    theory, hypothesis or surmise.

    You REJECT and EXPUNGE
    theory, hypothesis and surmise
    that does not conform to
    objective data.

    The climate alarmists do not seem to be able to
    Understand that .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    As usual JAYPEE nicely summarized .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    R. Johnson

    |

    Of course the models are wrong they were intentionally programmed to show the worst possible outcome. Notice how actual temperatures are nowhere close to the model predictions? Go back and read the conclusions of each IPCC report, temperature rise decreased in each report. Almost every land based temperature reading has been manipulated to be warmer. It’s done by locating weather stations in hot areas (US), using software to limit capture of low temperatures (Australia), attributing higher temperatures to unmonitored areas or simply using imbedded algorithms to mod data warmer. It’s subtle, venal and malignant behavior to prop up a failed global warming/climate change scheme for money and control.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      Well said. If you tell people Global Warming is phony , you’re the guy wearing a tin foil hat.
      There must be a way to stop the lies. The 98% concensus is easily the biggest. The bigger they are the harder they fall. We need some senior climate experts to come forward and say they were never onside with catastrophic AGW and declare why not. The time is now. Every time a high profile Warmist lies, point it out . They’ll eventually shut up.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    BillD

    |

    As a scientist and professor, I have been mainly concerned about the wild claims about this study from conservative news media. It simply provides evidence that we still could avoid catastrophic if we take strong action to reduce fossil fuel emission. So far there is not much evidence to chose between the present study and other studies which say that we have less time to active in order to keep warming below 1.5 oC. Essentially all of published science sees climate change as a dangerous and costly problem that is being caused primarily by fossil fuel emissions.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      It confirms that climate models have been wrong, all in the same direction! Bias? Activism? Financial incentives? How long has it been since Climategate? They have not changed their ways.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      David Lewis

      |

      One of my professors once said that science is not a democracy. As such, “Essentially all of published science sees climate change as a dangerous and costly problem that is being caused primarily by fossil fuel emissions.” has no more meaning than statement signed by a 100 physicists challenging Einstein’s theories. The overwhelming support of the climate change movement is a measurement of funding and political control. What does have meaning is the very poor correlation between warming and carbon dioxide levels.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    As a scientist Bill Nye is as authentic as a 3 Dollar Bill

    Reply

    • Avatar

      stefan pedersen

      |

      Let the alarmists,admit their case in a Court of Law.Its about time to get transparent,and let the eyes see the real deal.

      Reply

Leave a comment