Science v. Ideology: 36 Climate Models Overestimated Warming in U.S. Corn Belt

PJ Media ^ | 06/22/2023 | Catherine Salgado

[SeekAndFind]

Facts don’t care about your fear-mongering. In an outcome completely foreseeable after 50+ years of failed climate predictions, it seems that a whopping 36 climate models overestimated warming in America’s Corn Belt — by a lot.

Longtime climate truth-teller Steve Milloy tweeted out evidence from Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D., a climatologist, author, and former NASA scientist. Spencer and Milloy both shared a chart showing how wildly inaccurate climate models were compared to the actual measured temperature trend from 1973 to 2022.

Climate model clown show:

All 36 climate models used to advance the climate agenda in the US way overestimate observed warming in the corn belt.


https://t.co/3rrBpdZh4H pic.twitter.com/AcHbiIhHMo

— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) June 22, 2023

The above information was posted close to the June 21 five-year anniversary of climate apocalypse prophet Greta Thunberg’s tweet predicting that “climate change will wipe out all of humanity” if the use of fossil fuels wasn’t stopped… within five years. And yet, despite half a century of similar failed predictions, businesses and governments are still making drastic changes based on climate alarmist talking points. At what point do we admit reality?

Dr. Spencer wrote:

The climate models relied upon by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are known to overestimate warming compared to observations. Depending upon the region (global? U.S.?), temperature metric (surface? deep ocean? lower atmosphere?) and time period (last 150 years? last 50 years?) the average model over-estimate of warming can be either large or small.

But nowhere is it more dramatic than in the U.S. Corn Belt during the growing season (June, July, August).

[SeekAndFind]

The following plot shows the 50-year area-averaged temperature trend during 1973-2022 for the 12-state corn belt as observed with the official NOAA homogenized surface temperature product (blue bar) versus the same metric from 36 CMIP6 climate models (red bars, SSP245 emissions scenario, output here).

To put it in less technical terms, the climate doom-sayers were wrong. Again. As they always are.

[TomGuy]

wildly inaccurate climate models were compared to the actual measured temperature trend

I wonder how that compares with the ole Farmer's Almanac?

[logi_cal869]

They don’t care.

I accidentally came across these just tonight (the propaganda is accelerating):

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/terrifying-nasa-video-shows-visible-carbon-emissions/ar-AA1cQcuT

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/nasa-animation-shows-sea-level-rise-in-past-30-years/vi-AA1cTRj3

[sauropod]

.

[grame]

They just use it to their favor by using the lower temps are because of cooling when the don’t match the predictions. They can have it both ways.

[threefinger]

There are many variations on the Scientific Method but two obligatory steps in all of them are, a) empirically and objectively assess the accuracy of your model, and b) adjust your model to reflect observed outcomes.

If your model fails to fall in line with observed data over any significant length of time, you are not using a scientific method.