Above, good agreement between historical modeling and actual measurements thru 2023.
Note that while last year was an intense one, global temps continue to track pretty closely to predictions of the last 50 years.
What made the year so wild, and what is rattling a lot of observers, even senior scientists, is that while the models have been spot on for global average, they have not captured the intensity of extreme events, which pop out when you slice the data different ways.
For instance, looking below at anomalies in the September-November quartile, you see just how sharp some of those extremes have been.
Out of curiosity, the 95% CI. What does that mean. What I am used to seeing is a 2 sigma zone around the mean. If I have that correct. As I compare one graph to the other, it appears we are out of the 95% CI zone for last year.
Given that the gremlins at the climate factory retroactively adjust the global temperature record every few years, who could be surprised that the predictions match the record?
But it’s all fake news. There are over 100 climate models with historical prediction all of which are running too hot (the predictions are overstated to the actuals.
Moreover Spenser’s “Latest Global Temperatures” show no actual warming for the past 8 years.
AGW is a scientific fraud. The warming happens first, then the rise in CO2. Therefore the CO2 rise CANNOT be the cause (causes don’t happen after effects).
How do you “retroactively” change published science papers?
The “official” temp record is not from scientific papers. Duh.
By “Spenser” do you mean Roy Spencer, the guy who embraces Intelligent Design and wants policy based on a “Biblical view” rather than science?
Yes, Spencer, of course. I’m obsessed with the poet.
I’m an atheist, but I don’t use that against people who are believers, especially scientists. Probably the majority of scientists before 1900 believed in God. Your ad hominem is irrelevant, given Roy is only reporting what the satellites show.
FWIW, one month does not make a trend. Some might even point out that it’s “weather” not climate.
Except it’s a positive feedback loop where an initial temperature rise from say, an increase in solar output, causes outsourcing of carbon dioxide from warming oceans. The outsourced carbon dioxide feeds back into the loop causing a continuing temperature rise causes more outsourcing of carbon dioxide and so on.
With regards to your “100 climate models … all running too hot”, are you comparing like with like? That is, have you excluded the worst-case scenarios for carbon dioxide emissions that exceed actual carbon dioxide emissions?
And if you mean Roy Spencer’s UAH Global Temperatures data doesn’t “show any actual warming for the last 8 years”, you’re not up to date.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/
The claim that “it’s a feedback loop” is merely an unscientific assertion. If the earth warmed from say natural causes by 1C the outgassing from the oceans would add 83 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. Worse, as it turns out even the IPCC (AR4) admits that the warming happens first, then the increase in CO2. Thus AGW contradicts causality.
The whole thing is pseudo-science.
No. It’s not “pseudo-science” and, like the IPCC, I’m not denying the warming has happened first eons ago from say, an increase in solar input or insolation with additional CO2 being added from the warming oceans.
But we live in the here and now, where industrialization is adding the majority of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.
What you’ve overlooked is the increase in solar insolation from its long-term average to a maximum is around 1 Watt/sq. metre (
You’ve also overlooked that CO2 amplifies the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. Given that the sun’s solar output is steady (and not increasing), this is evident in the “Spenser” data.
In summation, you’ve claimed the atmosphere hasn’t warmed in the last 8 years. “Spensers” data shows that it has.
You’ve also claimed only one month is warmer than 8 years ago. “Spensers” data shows that claim is incorrect. You’ve also ignored the upward trend in “Spensers” data.
You’ve claimed 100 models are running hot without any reference or link to show that a like-to-like comparison is being made with the posted graph above.
The posted graph is for the average of 95% confidence interval projections hindcast from 2004 to 1970 and forecast from 2004 to present. Below is the link to the source of the posted graph.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/02/2022-updates-to-model-observation-comparisons/
There’s too much wrong with your above, I’m not sure it’s worth my time to refute it. It’s largely guesswork how much of CO2 emissions are natural vs manmade, but the estimates are that 3-5% of emissions are. The claim that more CO2 in the air over pre-industrial times has created any material warming has never been experimentally demonstrated (and there are scientific papers that shed doubt that it does, e.g., van Gardingen et all, 1995).
There are multiple TOA solar data sets none of which are provably the best. Soon et al (2023) demonstrates that with an insolation data set ignored by the AR6, insolation explains almost all the variation in global temps.
As putatively 93% of the excess heat from global warming goes into the oceans, we know that’s total BS because the oceans are warmer than the air, so atmospheric CO2 cannot warm the oceans without violating the 2nd Law.
John Christy’s many videos demonstrate the climate models are all running too hot. I’ll leave it to you to follow up.
AGW is obvious pseudo science because: 1) it’s never been experimentally demonstrated and the scientific method requires experiment; and 2) the warming happens first, then the rise in CO2, suggesting AGW violates causality itself.