Nicola Scafetta does not write it as clearly as in the headline, but clearly enough:
“The result has obvious consequences also for the models’ warming expectations for the 21st century because, to make these models consistent with our proposed adjusted temperature record, their projected warming should be reduced by about 40% for all emission scenarios.”
Scafetta, nobody who says there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change, is one of those scientists who are actually interested in the topic and do not try to produce research that is well-liked by the IPCC, well-liked, which is generally rewarded with research funds. As a serious scientist, Scafetta faces a problem. This:
The figure, which Roy Spencer updates every month, shows the temperature that is measured in the troposphere. The data is collected at the Universty of Huntsville, Alabama and made available as a data set. Scafetta obtained this data set and also obtained the data set from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU-TS4.04), which compiles temperature measurement data for measuring stations worldwide, which in turn serve as the basis on which the CMIP -Models of the IPCC are calculated. These data, too, the complete data set for CMIP-5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5), with which the gloomy forecasts of the IPCC are created, Scafetta has obtained and then started to compare.
Scafetta writes that the climate models are expected to be able to adequately map global and local climate variations, such as those caused by different cloud cover, land use and sealing, aerosols in the air and much more. The problem: they don’t. They don’t even begin to do it. ALL, without exception all the climate models that the IPCC distributes, overestimate the warming that has occurred since 1940 (see figure above) many times over, which is puzzling in that the climate models are supposedly calibrated to match the previous ones Accurately map temperatures. They obviously don’t do that, and things get even worse: Scafetta finds that different models of the IPCC produce local differences as it were, without any systematics, contradicting, coincidental.
Typically, models that produce arbitrary results at the local level are thrown in the trash can. Usually. But the models that the IPCC is disseminating to enable billionaires to increase their wealth are not intended to accurately represent reality, they are intended to provide political ammunition that will not only address climate change. Can fuel hysteria, but with which it is also possible to discredit those who point out that the human influence on the climate, if it exists at all to a relevant extent, e.g. compared to the influence of the sun, is rather irrelevant.
The following figure shows how bad the models of the IPCC are:
Climate patterns are shown in both figures. The two figures differ in that different IPCC climate models have been used. If these models were only partially reliable, then the color samples in both images would have to be identical. Obviously they are not. They are arbitrary and contradicting. The models are absolute junk – or, in the more reserved formulation of Scafetta:
“…is shown in Fig. 6, which indicates that the various models show very different local patterns that contradict each other while they are supposed to reproduce climatic patterns on a 60-year period also locally.”
Such calculations are not made to show that the IPCC’s climate models are junk. This is well known, is only ignored by activists and political actors for the most varied of motives. No, such calculations are made on the basis of a hypothesis about why the IPCC models are so wrong, whereby the hypothesis does not refer to the political motivation, which is not questionable, because when someone spreads hysteria and at the same time offers the cure for hysteria for sale , then only motives of one’s own enrichment or malice, the desire to harm others, can stand behind it, no, the hypothesis deals with the errors, the systematic errors that – intentionally or unintentionally – are integrated into climate models and lead to the warming is so hopefully overestimated.
The hypothesis that Scafetta formed sees Urban Heat Islands at the center. It is nice to read such a hypothesis, because around 60 years after Garrett Hardin pointed out in his article, “The Tragedy of the Commons” that most of the problems humanity faces are a result of OVERPOPULATION, 60 years later the awareness re-emerges that the crowd in which people populate the planet may be the real problem. Urban Heat Islands (UHIs) arise through urbanization and UHIs essentially describe the fact that nocturnal winds bring the air of the cities, which heat up during the day, into the surrounding area and ensure that the surrounding area is also heated. The hypothesis is that the global temperature increase is at least partly due to such UHIs.
This phenomenon can be measured via the minimum temperatures, because in contrast to what MS media are so fond of spreading, it is not the maximum temperatures that have risen in recent years, but the minimum temperatures. Scafetta calculates the diurnal temperature range (DTR), i.e. the daily temperature range for the respective measurement units, from both the maximum and minimum temperatures for the 2.5 km by 2.5 km areas that form the basic unit of many climate models are evenly distributed over the earth and on this basis first establishes that the climate models of the IPCC are not able to map the changes in the DTR that have occurred in the 60 years up to 2014.
DTRs are a direct result of urbanization, the resulting Urban Heat Islands, and the warming of the last decades is reflected in the fact that the daily temperature range around cities has narrowed. First of all, that’s a hypothesis, but one that Scafetta can quickly confirm. The following observation that climate models of the IPCC do not capture this change, that they produce arbitrary results in the direction of a considerable overestimation of warming, leads to the masterstroke: If there is a “warming bias” in climate models, then should If these models significantly overestimate global warming in areas where there are no Urban Heat Islands that reduce the overestimation, then the models should deviate significantly from the measured data. Scafetta tests this hypothesis for Greenland and lo and behold, the result is dramatic:
The red line shows the observation data, the blue line shows the model simulation that was calculated on the basis of this observation data. The deviation is considerable.
“Thus, the models (which are calibrated to reproduce, on average, the observed global warming trend since 1900) hindcast almost twice the warming than what has been recorded in Greenland since 1930-1950.
In the models of the IPCC, the actual warming is doubled. Who could be interested in it?
But Scafetta doesn’t end there. After showing that the warming calculated in the IPCC’s climate models exaggerates the actual warming many times over, even if actual observational data are the starting point of the modeling after showing that in the warming that the If it shows climate models that do not contain climatic warming, which occurs as a result of urbanization, Scafetta sets out to quantify the corresponding error contained in the IPCC’s climate models.
The result looks like this:
The green lines, there are 106 in number, indicate the development of global temperature when the different models of the IPCC are used to carry out the corresponding modeling. The orange line represents the mean of the 106 models. The red line shows the actual temperature measured in the troposphere, and the black line shows the reconstruction of the temperature that Scafatta made based on the data from East Anglia. As if by magic, all models of the IPCC come to temperatures over time that are well above actual temperatures, while Scafetta’s calculation depicts the actual temperature, which is accessible via the data set of the University of Huntsville, very well.
This leads to only one conclusion: the hypothesis formulated by Scafetta that the IPCC models not only calculate the global temperature as much too high, but that the results are also wrong because of the influence, urbanization and the resulting urban heat Iceland’s global temperature has not been taken into account is confirmed. What is missing is how much the panic rate of warming that the IPCC likes to spread will be reduced if these errors are eliminated from the model:
“In the light of the above findings, and under the assumption that the SST [Sea Surface Temperature] warming since 1940–1960 is accurate, the models can be scaled on the SST record and used to estimate an expected land warming. Corrected in such a way, we determined that 25–45% of the recorded 0.97±0.05 °C land warming from 1940 to 1960 to 2000–2020 is likely due to urbanization and other unidentifed non-climatic factors biasing the available climatic records.”
In other words: Assuming that the temperature data contained in the IPCC models for the sea surface are correct, an assumption that the IPCC very much accommodates, the error in the IPCC models amounts to at least 25% -45% over the past 60 years. On average, Scafetta writes a few lines further, the IPCC models overestimate the actual warming of the planet by 40%. And Scafetta’s estimate is based on the assumption that the ocean surface temperature modeling is correct, an assumption that doesn’t need to be made. Scafetta’s estimate of 40% is therefore a very conservative estimate. The actual exaggeration is probably well above that.
In any case, we are told absolute nonsense not only with regard to SARS-CoV-2, we are not only dealt with wrong numbers with regard to SARS-CoV-2, also with regard to the alleged climate crisis, the entire story is based on more or less fictitious numbers. The fact that the invention is then sold as the result of modeling is only symbolic cosmetics.