Tag: computer model

No, New York Times, We Don’t Need to Dam the Bering Strait

The New York Times (NYT) reports in “A New Idea to Save the Climate? Dam the Bering Strait.” that scientists have proposed building a 50-mile-long dam between Alaska and Russia to stabilize the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in order to prevent climate catastrophe. This is a seriously risky idea.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

The New York Times (NYT) reports in “A New Idea to Save the Climate? Dam the Bering Strait.” that scientists have proposed building a 50-mile-long dam between Alaska and Russia to stabilize the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in order to prevent climate catastrophe. This is a seriously risky idea. The proposal is not an engineering plan grounded in observational need, but rather is computer-model thought experiment based on speculative tipping-point scenarios not justified by data concerning the AMOC or an understanding of what the possible future consequences might be for humans, the oceans, and sea life.

The author describes an article published in Science Advances where the idea of a cross continental dam across the Bering Strait is proposed as a “proof of concept,” noting that the dam could, under certain modeled conditions, prevent an AMOC collapse. It further explains that the findings come from a computer model of Earth’s climate, not from direct evidence that the AMOC is about to fail. That distinction is critical.

As Climate Realism has reported in dozens of articles, the AMOC has been the subject of repeated alarmist headlines over the past decade. Some studies have projected weakening. Others have suggested relative stability. Still others have found mechanisms, such as Southern Ocean wind-driven upwelling, which may be strengthening the AMOC. The scientific literature has moved in three directions: collapse, steady-state persistence, and even partial strengthening depending on assumptions.

What has not emerged is observational evidence of imminent shutdown.

The NYT acknowledges that “the uncertainty is very, very large,” quoting a climate scientist who says researchers do not know how close the AMOC is to collapse.

The proposed intervention outlined in the study would block the Bering Strait to alter freshwater flows between the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans. The model simulations suggest that if the AMOC is still strong, closing the strait might help maintain salinity and stabilize circulation. But if the AMOC is already weak, the same intervention could accelerate collapse.

In other words, the intervention could help, harm, or do nothing depending on timing and initial conditions.

That is not a control mechanism; it is a Las Vegas style gamble on a global scale.

The proposal relies on climate model outputs run under specific forcing assumptions. Models are useful tools, but they are not reality. Ocean circulation at the scale of the AMOC involves complex thermohaline processes, wind forcing, stratification, and deep-water formation, most of which aren’t well understood and, at best if accounted for at all in climate models, are only imperfectly represented even in state-of-the-art systems.

Moreover, the underlying modeling framework uses coarse resolution that does not fully resolve the Bering Strait’s dynamics, instead parameterizing throughflow behavior. From that abstraction comes a proposal to physically block a major ocean gateway. The AMOC is critical to coastal communities and the health and lifecycles of sea life. There is no evidence the models accounted for ancillary impacts on these communities or species – the only focus was keeping the AMOC from collapsing, though, it turns out, the proposed cure may, in fact, cause the collapse.

The scale of the proposal itself should give pause. An 80-kilometer barrier in Arctic conditions across an international boundary is not comparable to ordinary coastal infrastructure. The NYT notes that once built, such a structure “couldn’t easily be taken down.” Geoengineering does not come with an undo button.

The Bering Strait is also a biological choke point linking Pacific and Arctic ecosystems. Blocking it would alter nutrient transport, salinity gradients, and marine migration pathways. The ecological consequences are acknowledged only briefly in the NYT coverage, yet they could be profound.

There is also a glaring contradiction embedded in this narrative. For years, readers have been told that the AMOC is fragile, sensitive to freshwater perturbations, and prone to tipping points. If that is true, why would deliberately shutting off a major ocean exchange be considered a sane idea? If the system is robust enough to tolerate such intervention, then perhaps the entire AMOC collapse narrative deserves reconsideration.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) states that while AMOC weakening is likely under high-emissions scenarios – scenarios which are not just improbable but likely impossible, there is low confidence in a collapse before 2100. That is a far cry from imminent shutdown requiring Arctic mega-dams. The NYT article concedes that scientists do not know how close the AMOC is to collapse.

What we are seeing is a pattern. As climate modeling grows more dramatic, proposed interventions grow more extreme: carbon capture and permanent storage; solar radiation blocking; and now ocean dams. Each rest on the assumption that models reliably predict nonlinear system behavior decades in advance.

Before entertaining planetary-scale geoengineering, a simpler question should be asked: where is the observational evidence of near-term failure? The RAPID array has been monitoring the AMOC since 2004 and shows variability but not collapse. Paleo records indicate multidecadal fluctuations long before industrial emissions.

Ocean circulation is complex. Uncertainty is high. Models disagree. And now, on that uncertain foundation, we are asked to consider blocking an ocean strait. This is mad scientists from the movies type stuff. The NYT shouldn’t have even given this proposal an audience.

This is not sober climate reporting by The New York Times. It amplifies a speculative modeling exercise as if it were visionary thinking. When the cure involves restructuring planetary oceanic circulation based on uncertain and likely flawed simulations, skepticism is not denial, it is prudence in the face of a crazy idea with unknown consequences. The evidence that humans actually control the climate is exceedingly weak, but this proposal, if enacted, would certainly cause unforetold and unpredictable climate disruptions that we haven’t even begun to consider.

Crazy plans don’t become reasonable just because some group of scientists propose them. And crazy plans, just because they are floated, don’t necessarily merit the attention of a major media outlet, promoting it as a reasonable idea.

EV power consumption — a costly mystery

The problem is that most EVs, most of the time, are charged at the owner’s residence or workplace. In both cases, the electricity consumed is often simply added to that building’s total on the meter. There is no separate accounting for it, so no data. There are about 7,000,000 EVs on the American road with unknown grid impacts.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

This article is about questions, not answers. When it comes to understanding the electric power grid, there is a big data gap that needs to be overcome. We have no actual data on how much electricity EVs consume or when and where they consume it.

The problem is that most EVs, most of the time, are charged at the owner’s residence or workplace. In both cases, the electricity consumed is often simply added to that building’s total on the meter. There is no separate accounting for it, so no data. There are about 7,000,000 EVs on the American road with unknown grid impacts.

We do have a government guess to a preposterous eight significant figures, based on a computer model. But there is no way to test or calibrate the model, so there is no reason to believe its output.

Still, we can use these conjectured numbers to make some basic points about EV power and energy usage. We will treat them as true for the moment. They are from EIA here.

Estimated total EV energy consumption for the last three years is this:

2025 = 23,532,855 MWh 2024 = 17,800,214 MWh 2023 = 13,212,000 MWh

Note that the number almost doubled in just two years. That is remarkable growth, especially when people talk about the EV market being dead.

Still even the biggest number is just a tiny fraction of U.S. electric energy consumption. As a result, many articles say it shows that EVs have little or no grid impact. That conclusion is seriously wrong because there is more to the grid than total annual statistics.

What mostly challenges the grid is power not energy, MW not MWh, especially peak demand. Here EVs can have a significant impact because they are in effect peak demand generators.

The typical EV only charges for a very small fraction of the time, so the charge rate is quite large. In fact, there is a tremendous effort to develop ever faster charging, which makes the charge peak even bigger.

When lots of EVs charge at the same time, the combined peak demand can be very significant. It is the impact of a lot of EVs charging at the same time that we need to understand.

Here is a wildly worst-case scenario that that makes the potential impact clear. First, let’s assume all the 7 million or so EVs charge at the same time. Second, let’s say they charge three times a week and it takes just a half hour each time, with a constant charge rate. (This short time is reasonable because most will just be topping off to get a full charge.)

Taking the 2025 number at a round 24,000,000 MWh, that amount is drawn from the grid in 156 hours. The charge rate is just under 154,000 MW.

This is a huge demand. In fact, it is roughly equal to the record peak demand at PJM which serves 67 million customers. Demand like this would quickly fry the grid.

Of course, the reality is far more complex, and nothing even remotely like this has ever happened. But there are only so many hours a day, and most of those 7 million EVs have to be charged fairly often.

The big question is what do the potential many-EV combined peaks look like at a realistic scale? They may already be a problem at the local level.

While the reliability problem may yet be small, the cost problem might already be big. It has long been claimed that many local power distribution networks will need to be upgraded to provide the capacity to handle EV charging.

Upgrading is expensive, and if there is a lot going on, it might be a significant component of the present price increases. Is there a correlation between EV registrations and electricity price increases?

The fact that EV power usage is invisible could be hiding problems that are serious and rapidly growing. We really need to understand what is going on.

Study: “We need a big stick” to Force Down Carbon Emissions by 2050

Climate scientists embracing their inner eco-fascist?

Three young people running in a grassy field, looking frightened, while a cartoonish, smiling CO2 character chases them.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Climate scientists embracing their inner eco-fascist?

‘Carrots’ can’t save the climate – we need a big ‘stick’

Publicly released: Mon 22 Dec 2025 at 2100 AEDT | Mon 22 Dec 2025 at 2300 NZDT

Subsidies for green technologies (‘carrots’) may help in the short-term, but punishment policies like charging for carbon emissions (‘sticks’) are likely needed as well to greatly reduce CO2 emissions by 2050, according to a US study. Researchers used a computer model of the US that included factors like socioeconomics, energy systems and consumer demands to look at the effects of ‘carrot-first’ policies, in which the ‘stick’ was introduced in 2035 or in 2045. They found that the size of the ‘stick’ (i.e. the price of carbon) would have to be just as big, or even bigger, than if only a ‘stick’ policy was used, without any ‘carrots’ to sweeten the deal. The researchers said that although ‘carrot’ policies are more appealing to governments to appease big industries and voters, leaders need to start hitting out with ‘sticks’ to make sure CO2 emissions dramatically decrease by 2050.

Read more: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/carrots-cant-save-the-climate-we-need-a-big-stick

The abstract of the study;

  • Article
  • Published: 22 December 2025

Modelling the impacts of policy sequencing on energy decarbonization

Nature Climate Change (2025)Cite this article

Abstract

Many political jurisdictions have embraced climate policy strategies that emphasize large subsidies to deploy green technologies (‘carrots’) with the anticipation that more punitive policies (‘sticks’) may follow. However, little is known about how such policy sequencing affects future policies, emission reductions and costs. Using a multisector model for the USA, we examine carrot-first policies which mimic the increasingly popular interest in industrial policy and offer a way to model these real-world policy choices in energy-system models. We find that a carrot-first policy strategy still requires later use of similar-sized sticks when compared with a policy strategy that begins with sticks and achieves the same levels of long-term decarbonization. Policy carrots alone do not dramatically reduce future emissions. Only with policy sticks are there unambiguous signals to substantially shrink the size of incumbent fossil fuel industries.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02497-6

Sticks are only required in the context of energy policy if the energy policy doesn’t make sense.

When the world transitioned from whale oil to kerosene between 1860 to 1870, it was pretty much all over by 1870. No government subsidies or coercion were required, because the energy transition made sense. Whale oil was expensive and smelly, and kerosene was cheap and had a less offensive odour.

In addition, sticks can lead to bad outcomes. Whether it be sky high energy prices in green states like California or New York’s unheated school bus horror WUWT recently reported, driving energy use change with coercion forces people into bad situations they wouldn’t choose of their own free will.

New York Unheated EV School Bus Horror

The silver lining to this nastiness is this is the demand for coercion is tantamount to an admission the renewable transition has failed, that green technology is not ready to replace fossil fuel. Ordinary people are rejecting the renewable energy transition on a scale which makes Net Zero goals impossible without the use of coercion and force. Otherwise, desperate greens wouldn’t be advocating depriving people of liberty to make their own choices.

One Daily Beef Chipolata and a Small Nibble of Cheese: Eco Nutters Reveal New Planetary Health Diet

Ignorance of basic human biology and the woke propagandising of food ‘science’ to control global human behaviour lies behind the recently-published second version of the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet (PHD). Produced by dozens of credentialled cretins around the world, it restricts meat and dairy consumption to levels not seen since the Second World War.

A stylized globe composed of various fruits, vegetables, and plants, symbolizing global nutrition and sustainability.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Colorful graphic of a food pie chart illustrating different food categories including vegetables, whole grains, dairy, and protein sources.

Ignorance of basic human biology and the woke propagandising of food ‘science’ to control global human behaviour lies behind the recently-published second version of the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet (PHD). Produced by dozens of credentialled cretins around the world, it restricts meat and dairy consumption to levels not seen since the Second World War. Pasty-faced and possibly protein-starved researchers suggest around 15 grams of red meat a day and promote a mainly plant-based diet. A suggestion to cut agricultural emissions by 50% within 25 years means using much less hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser, and that would lead to mass global starvation. But then this potty planetary piss-take could only have been suggested by people who believe that, whatever societal devastation they cause, the soy latte will magically appear as they make their way to Whole Foods to pick up their organic humous.

The few people still watching CNN were treated to the suggestion that the diet could feed 9.6 billion people “equitably” by 2050, save $5 trillion yearly and prevent 15 million deaths. All this, of course, came from a ‘business-as-usual’ computer model which used a scenario similar to the widely discredited RCP8.5. More than a daily allowance of salt needs to be taken with this made-up agitprop. Second World War total calories of 2,500 are suggested, with land-hungry whole grains, vegetables, legumes, nuts and unprocessed oils providing the vast proportion of the diet. Competing with all those wind turbines, solar farms and rewilding schemes, hard-pressed farmers, facing increasing ‘carbon’ taxes on artificial fertilisers, will still be expected to provide City-based wokies with their virtue-filled home deliveries. Haloes can be polished while they luxuriate in the glow caused by knowing that their sainted scoff has been produced by “inclusive governance that centres indigenous knowledge and community voices”. Who knows what that guff actually means in practice, although it is good to know that it is a “transformative action”.

It is easy to mock. Humans are natural meat eaters and have thrived on its consumption. A largely plant-based diet needs careful planning to ensure healthy nutrition. It is not generally recommended for growing children, and the likelihood of it being widely accepted is minimal. Poor diets, by choice or circumstance, have always existed, but on average today humans live much longer than in the past and generally have much better food supplies across the world.

Needless to say, the EAT-Lancet report is not primarily aimed at the general population, since it is funded by the Green Blob to influence policymakers. Already in London, Mayor Sadiq Khan has signed up the City to implement the plan for all by 2030. Since the PHD first appeared in 2019, it has been extensively referenced, integrated into policies and endorsed in declarations by numerous international elite organisations. Various parts of the United Nations have framed the recommendations as a scientific blueprint for aligning food systems with climate and health priorities. Waffle about climate and social ‘justice’ is ubiquitous. The Green Blob-funded C40 network of 100 cities, chaired by Khan, is committed to climate bothering and is one of the PHD’s strongest supporters, driving action at the urban level.

As noted, there has been some media coverage of PHD 2.0, but the limited publicity – the BBC has stayed silent – suggests the main target audience is the elite political class. Best not to worry the smelly food-eating plebs too much at this stage. But, as always, look at what they write and say amongst themselves, particularly when it is the product of huge quantities of Green Blob money. But how will the State enforce such dietary requirements in a free society without stringent rationing and control? As it happens, and no doubt a complete coincidence, the UK Government is currently floating proposals for a nationwide identity card. Marketed as a possible help in mitigating the country’s open borders experiment, it is not difficult to foresee widespread future uses. Apart from providing right-to-work checks, the Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer has also let slip that it could be rolled out to access ‘”your own money”. Handy, of course, if the State wants to check up on your weekly rationed purchase of an egg, a couple of pints of animal milk and a small packet of planet-destroying sausages.

The EAT operation is awash with Green money. Co-founded in 2014 by the wealthy, private jet owing environmental activist Gunhild Stordalen, it seeks to transform the global food system to mitigate the overwhelming problems it imagines are caused by humans changing the climate. In common with many other such operations, the money buys influence, if not effective control over wide swathes of industry, politics, media, academia and science. EAT is based in Oslo and is backed by the Stordalen Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC). Any colour of promoting money, except Green expert George Monbiot, is a member of its advisory board. In 2015, Gunhild Stordalen was named a “Young Global Leader” by the World Economic Forum.

The SRC is chaired by Johan Rockstrom from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, often described as the activist’s activist. He is also the lead author of the EAT-Lancet paper. The SRC is backed by its own long list of so-called philanthropic, tax-efficient foundations. Meanwhile, the latest list of cash investors in EAT-Lancet Commission 2.0 are said to include IKEA, Rockefeller, Wellcome Trust, Swedish Postcode, Novo Nordisk and Seedling.

The world is moving on from a lot of this sinister Net Zero nonsense. Peak silliness has passed but the Blob will not give up the hard Left grift until decisive political battles, still ongoing, are finally won.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

False, New York Times, Climate Change Isn’t Causing More European Heat Deaths

In his The New York NYT (NYT) article, “Climate Change’s Toll in Europe This Summer: Thousands of Extra Deaths,” reporter Raymond Zhong claims that severe heat in Europe this summer killed three times as many people as would have died in a world without human-caused warming. This is false. These are not real additional deaths, but estimates based on a modeling analysis of mortality trends across 854 European cities. Hard data on heat and cold mortality refutes the NYT’s claim.

A group of individuals in shallow water, appearing distressed, surrounded by foam, with dark, stormy clouds looming above. The text 'Summer of Hell' is prominently displayed in red.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

Image features a person wiping their forehead in a crowded outdoor setting, while behind them, individuals in red cross uniforms attend to others. The image has 'FAKE NEWS' prominently overlaid.

In his The New York NYT (NYT) article, “Climate Change’s Toll in Europe This Summer: Thousands of Extra Deaths,” reporter Raymond Zhong claims that severe heat in Europe this summer killed three times as many people as would have died in a world without human-caused warming. This is false. These are not real additional deaths, but estimates based on a modeling analysis of mortality trends across 854 European cities. Hard data on heat and cold mortality refutes the NYT’s claim.

The NYT reports that 24,400 deaths were attributable to the season’s heat, compared to just 8,000 in a counterfactual world generated by computer model algorithms absent greenhouse gas emissions. To support its claims, the NYT quotes and cites the work of Dr. Malcolm Mistry of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who concludes that Europe’s inability to keep pace with global warming shows a dangerous vulnerability, saying “nearly all heat-related deaths are preventable.” The NYT story further cites earlier research that estimated 61,000 people died during the 2022 summer heat across the continent, half of which it attributed directly to climate change.

The NYT framing is deeply misleading. The first problem is that Mistry’s analysis, by the article’s admission, has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This means it’s nothing more than a unsubstantiated opinion. Instead, Mistry’s analysis relies on modeled “early estimates” extrapolated from past mortality rates and climate model counterfactuals. That means the 24,400 figure is not based on actual death records, but on computer simulations. As anyone who has followed climate science closely knows, computer models are seriously flawed and can be tuned to yield virtually any desired outcome. Models’ projections are not equivalent to hard observational evidence.

In an attempt to frighten its readers, the NYT also omits crucial context, specifically that while heatwaves can indeed cause tragic deaths, data shows they aren’t becoming more common or severe and far more people die from cold than heat. A comprehensive study in The Lancet covering data from 43 countries found that cold weather kills about ten times more people than hot weather. Europe, with its long, harsh winters, is especially vulnerable to cold-related mortality. This reality undermines the constant focus on summer heat as though it were the primary temperature-related health threat. If policymakers are genuinely concerned with saving lives, reducing cold-weather deaths should be a far higher priority than sensationalizing seasonal heatwaves. (See the Figure 1, below)

Bar chart comparing deaths from excess cold and heat across different regions from 2000 to 2019, highlighting that cold weather causes significantly more deaths than heat.
Figure 1. Global heat and cold related deaths graphed by region, from 2000-2019. Graph created by Willis Eschenbach from Monash study data.

Equally important is the fact that a single hot year is a weather anomaly, not an indication of long-term climate change which could only be reflected in a trend of increasing heat waves; a trend which does not exist. The NYT presents a single season’s heat as though it was proof of a runaway climate crisis, yet meteorological records show that past heatwaves have been far more severe. Europe experienced devastating heat in 1540, when temperatures remained scorching for months. Temperatures were significantly above normal, reaching over 40°C (104°F) in many areas, causing widespread crop failures and famine across the continent. Even within the instrument record, the 2003 European heatwave, which killed more than 70,000 people, remains unmatched in severity despite lower atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. As Climate at a Glance points out, U.S. heatwaves were actually worse in the 1930s Dust Bowl era than they are today. Historical variability, not modern emissions alone, is the defining factor in extreme heat events.

Nor does the NYT acknowledge that 1.5°C of warming added to a heatwave peak makes little meaningful difference. If a city reaches 100°F during a heatwave, adding another 2.7°F is not what tips human health outcomes. What matters are pre-existing health conditions, housing quality, and access to cooling and hydration. A marginal increase in temperatures during an already hot event is does not make it less survivable.

This leads to the most glaring omission of all: Europe’s persistent lack of air conditioning.

A previous Climate Realism article points out that fewer than 20 percent of European households have air conditioning, compared with over 90 percent in the United States. In countries like Germany, France, and the UK, air conditioning is not only rare but often discouraged or even restricted by regulations. In Switzerland, homeowners in some cantons face prohibitive rules against installing units. In Spain, energy efficiency mandates restrict cooling use. These policies mean millions of Europeans are far more exposed to heat than their American counterparts. Blaming climate change while ignoring the absence of air conditioning is misleading at best and irresponsible at worst. Figure 2 below, from an article by Fixr titled “The Use of AC Across the World: Putting America’s Dependence Into Perspective,” clearly illustrates the difference between Europe and the rest of the developed world when it comes to air conditioning adoption.

World map showing the percentage of homes with air conditioning across different countries, highlighting the contrast between the USA at 90% and Europe at 20%.
Figure 2. Comparison of air conditioning adoption by country. Image by Fixr.

Even Sweden, cited in the NYT as a country where “climate change is now starting to lift summer temperatures into the range where they can harm human health,” could mitigate the risk easily by adopting modern cooling infrastructure. Yet the political climate in much of Europe frames air conditioning as environmentally suspect, leaving populations vulnerable. To claim, as the NYT does, that global warming is to blame while failing to mention the preventable factor of inadequate cooling is to substitute ideology for analysis.

Recent research published by both the International Journal of Biometeorology and the International Energy Agency both confirm that adaptation to heat, such as the wider adoption of air conditioning, saves thousands of lives each year, and could save more lives, for instance in Europe, if governments there didn’t’ discourage or forbid the technology’s adoption. I guess the NYT decided that this good news was not among the “News that’s fit to print,” as its masthead proclaims.

There is also a statistical trick at play. The study estimated that European summers would have been “2.2°C cooler” absent human emissions. But as Climate at a Glance explains, the observed global warming over the past century amounts to about 1.1°C, not 2.2°C. The study doubled the attribution to make its estimates more dramatic, highlighting just how malleable modeling assumptions can be.

Ultimately, the NYT has presented a speculative, model-based estimate as though it were hard evidence of climate catastrophe. The paper neglects the overwhelming toll of cold weather deaths, ignores historical heat extremes worse than today, exaggerates the impact of a degree or two of warming, and sidesteps the obvious reality that inadequate adoption of air conditioning—not carbon dioxide—is what is responsible for European heat related deaths in recent decades, including this year.

The New York Times has misled its readers, offering them a scary but ultimately false narrative of crisis rather than a sober assessment of facts. That may make for click-driving headlines, but it fails as serious journalism. The NYT’s readers deserve better than a warmed-over tale of doom built on simulations, omissions, and half-truths.

Wrong, Daily Mail, Global Warming is Not Spiraling Out of Control

A recent article by the Daily Mail, titled “Global warming is spiralling out of control: Earth could warm by a whopping 7°C by 2200, scientists predict – leading to flooding, famine, and catastrophic heatwaves,” presents this alarming claim based on a computer model. The scientists who developed the model as well as the Daily Mail are guilty of overstating the model’s predictions, its use, and burying the lede that this alarming outcome is very unlikely even in the modelled universe.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article by the Daily Mail, titled “Global warming is spiralling out of control: Earth could warm by a whopping 7°C by 2200, scientists predict – leading to flooding, famine, and catastrophic heatwaves,” presents this alarming claim based on a computer model. The scientists who developed the model as well as the Daily Mail are guilty of overstating the model’s predictions, its use, and burying the lede that this alarming outcome is very unlikely even in the modelled universe.

The study was conducted by scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) – which due to the track record of the organization having a propensity for predicting dire but improbable climate scenarios, already indicates that the outcome of the model study is hardly unbiased. The Daily Mail reports the study says the planet “could warm by a whopping 7°C (12.6°F) by 2200 even if CO2 emissions are moderate[.]”

The scientists “used their own newly developed computer model, called CLIMBER-X, to simulate future global warming scenarios,” which involves “key” earth processes, and incorporates “carbon cycle feedback loops’ – where one change to the climate amplifies another,” which Daily Mail says are “being overlooked.”

It is nonsense that so-called feedback loops are being overlooked. They aren’t even being overlooked in climate modelling; Climate Realism has responded to plenty of mainstream media articles commenting on the same types of claims from climate scientists, here, here, and here, for instance.

In the first link above, meteorologist Anthony Watts discusses the exact feedbacks the Daily Mail article highlights in 2023, and he notes that even then, these were not new claims. Watts explained:

The list of claimed climate feedback loops include many which have been shown to be non-problems, such ocean circulation, which science can’t even decide whether it is increasing or decreasing in any given decade. Another is sea level rise, which despite wild claims of acceleration, is actually unchanged and steady since 1850. Acceleration is disproved by actual data, and nothing more than an artifact of measurements from different satellite data being combined. The authors also ignore existing data on wildfires to claim that climate change is causing them to be more frequent or severe. The available data clearly refutes this claim.

Most of the article presents the model’s outputs as though they are likely, but buried further down is the admission that their less alarming scenarios show “there’s a 10 per cent chance that Earth will still warm by 3°C (5.4°F) by 2200 even if emissions begin to decline now.” Ten percent is not likely, yet it is framed by Daily Mail as though it is alarming and deserving of immediate civilization-level changes.

Climate modelling itself has continued to run into major problems as the models increase in complexity. As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2022, covered by H. Sterling Burnett at Climate Realism, as models have become more complex, and as the PIK scientists hail as an achievement in their own model, they have actually become less accurate at predicting global temperature change. This may sound counterintuitive, but when one considers the fact that more elements in the model means more assumptions that could be incorrect or incomplete, it begins to make sense. Scientists simply do not have a good enough understanding of how different systems interact in the atmospheric environment to be able to accurately model how they will behave – especially at a global scale over long timelines– in the future.

One should always be suspicious when an extreme climate claim is presented using computer modelling, especially when it is presented as if it were empirical evidence of a problem, and importantly, when the supposed dire results are set to occur long after the period of time where the scientists making these irresponsible claims can be held to account for fearmongering. The Daily Mail is sensationalizing the PIK scientists’ study, but apparently so are the scientists, who should know better. Both are attempting to mislead and frighten the public into accepting their preferred government action on climate.

HadCRUT Has Now Fully Removed 0.15°C From The 1940s Warmth ‘Blip’ As Proposed In 2009 E-mails

The amplitude of the recorded warmth in the 1940s was always a problem for purveyors of the human-caused global warming narrative. So the 1940s temperatures have been artificially cooled to make this less of a problem.

Road Sign – Oops!

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard 

The amplitude of the recorded warmth in the 1940s was always a problem for purveyors of the human-caused global warming narrative. So the 1940s temperatures have been artificially cooled to make this less of a problem.

In 2009, overseers of the HadCRUT global temperature data discussed “correcting” the “1940s warming blip” in e-mails that they later tried to hide from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) investigators.

“So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”

“I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately.”

“It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip?’.”

Image Source: Climate Gate E-mails (FOIA)

And, just as they had said they would do, 0.15°C of warmth has gradually been removed from the 1940s HadCRUT global temperature data over the last 15 years. They have “corrected” the data to align with their narrative.

Image Source: climate4you.com

What’s also noticeable here in this HadCRUT-changes-temperature-data chart provided by climate4you is just how much warmth has been added to 21st century temperatures since 2008.

The HadCRUT3 global temperature trend was recorded as 0.03°C per decade during the global warming hiatus years of 2000-2014 (Scafetta, 2022).

This was increased to 0.08°C per decade by version 4, as the overseers of the HadCRUT data conveniently added 0.1°C to 0.2°C to the more recent anomalies.

Today, in HadCRUT5, the 2000-2014 temperature trend has been adjusted up to 0.14°C per decade when using the computer model-infilling method.

So, within the last decade, a 15-year temperature trend has been changed from a pause to a strong warming. After all, when the observations don’t fit the narrative, it is time to change the observations.

Image Source: Scafetta, 2022

The Data Shows Sea Levels Have Been Falling For Over 100 Years in Scandinavia. But the IPCC Decides They’re Rising

The discovery appears to baffle Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo. It seems that this tool was not produced to test the validity of a scientific idea. It was instead an attempt to “alarm the user”, he said.

Adventure Caravans Scandinavian Countries RV Tour

From The Daily Sceptic

By CHRIS MORRISON

For over 100 years the North European cities of Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki have been steadily rising from the sea with no suggestion from observed evidence that local sea levels will not continue to drop by a few millimetres a year. That is until 2020, when the IPCC’s new AR6 Sea Level Projection Tool suddenly promoted substantial sea level rises all round. The discovery appears to baffle Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo. It seems that this tool was not produced to test the validity of a scientific idea. It was instead an attempt to “alarm the user”, he said.

Alarm it has. Since this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model was first made publicly available in 2020, there has been a rush of unchecked ‘flood’ stories in the mainstream media. The Daily Sceptic has reported on the activities of a US-based green agitprop operation called Climate Central that is backed by billionaire Foundations and uses the IPCC data to promote custom-made flood catastrophe stories in local media. Recently the Mirror reported that much of London could be gone within 80 years, while large area along the Humber and the Midlands could also disappear beneath the waves. Local politicians such as London mayor Sadiq Khan pick up on these fantastical stories and use them to justify harsh ‘climate’ polices, including an assault on private transport.

This is what Humlum found when he interrogated the IPCC’s new sea level change computer projection model for the coastal city of Oslo. The Norwegian capital, in common with other Scandinavian cities, was buried under a massive ice sheet that only started to lift 20,000 years ago. Even today, the area experiences an ongoing ‘isostatic’ land rise of several millimetres a year as it bounces back from underlying layers. The observed rate of sea level decline can be seen in the above graph in purple. If the 100-year plus observational trend continues, the sea level will fall by 28cm by the end of the century. The IPCC model forecasts a rise in sea level by 2100 of 17cm. Humlum found similar IPCC patterns and disconnects for the capitals of Sweden and Finland. Copenhagen was at the margin of the ice sheet, and a very small annual increase has become a substantial uplift of 45cm by 2100.

It is “extremely surprising”, observes Humlum, that this modelled change should first appear in 2020 as a rather marked step change in the relative sea level. Humlum suggests that if the modellers had produced data going back to 1950, “the conflict between measured and modelled data would immediately have become apparent”. In Humlum’s view, “it is highly disappointing that such a simple quality – or sanity check – was apparently never requested or performed by the IPCC”.

Humlum’s work features in the recently-published Clintel Report – The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC – and is part of a detailed and critical examination of the UN organisation’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). As we noted recently, the scientific authors are damning about much of the IPCC’s work. In addition to emphasising worst-case scenarios, it rewrites climate history, has a “huge” bias in favour of bad news, and keeps good news out of the widely-distributed Summary for Policy Makers. The worst case scenario is called SSP5-8.5 and it assumes temperatures will rise by up to 5°C within less than 80 years. Given that temperatures increased by barely 0.1°C in the first two decades of this century, almost nobody believe these scenarios are remotely plausible. Nevertheless, Clintel notes that 43% of IPCC predictions of drastic and damaging climate change, and around half the climate science literature, are based on these scenarios.

Humlum’s graph uses only a moderate SSP2-4.5 scenario. The more extreme scenarios are available to use on the IPCC Tool, a fact that might explain how, with the help of Climate Central, the Wilshire Times reported last year that by 2050 the waters could be lapping around Gloucester Cathedral, sited at an elevation of 19 metres. For its part, Climate Central notes that it provides “authoritative information to help the public and policymakers make sound decisions about climate change and energy”.

The level of the sea is very difficult to measure and despite recent advances in satellite altimetry, tidal gauges still offer a consistent record. Humlum has noted that these gauges located around the world suggest an average sea level rise of 1-2mm a year. Recent modelled attempts to incorporate satellite measurements produce a rise that that is said to be over 3mm. The IPCC is claiming a recent acceleration in sea level rise, but Humlum says the evidence for this is “thin”. The tide gauge records are said to show “remarkably linear behaviour for more than a century”.

Humlum says it is likely that the IPCC conflates what it sees as a recent “acceleration” in sea level with ocean multidecadal variability. “This should become clear in the next 10-20 years,” he writes. “Right now, it is very preliminary to claim there is an acceleration of the sea level rise.”

The starting point for the IPCC’s work is the assumption that all warming from about 1850 was caused by humans burning fossil fuel. Its 1988 founding principles told it to determine the “scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”. Given this dogma, the IPPC has become uniquely unsuited to considering all aspects of climate change, whether arising from the activities of humans or due to natural causes. Since 1988, there is considerably more understanding about the natural forces that cause the climate to change. Humlum feels that the IPCC’s blinkered view may have led to its latest errors in sea level modelling. “The fundamental IPCC finding of no significant influence of natural variations since about 1850 should therefore be reconsidered,” he argues.

The more cynical might note that the IPCC’s primary purpose is to promote the idea that the sole cause of global warming since 1850 is human activity. Any deviation from this line will cause considerable financial hardship and widespread unemployment in the climate science community.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic Environment Editor.

Relax, Fresh Plaza, Florida Strawberry Production Is Growing

Fresh Plaza, a global trade publication for the fresh produce industry, ran an article claiming climate change is harming Florida’s strawberry production. This is false.

Workers place the berries directly into the plastic clamshell packages that shoppers will find in stores.

From ClimateRealism

By H. Sterling Burnett

Fresh Plaza, a global trade publication for the fresh produce industry, ran an article claiming climate change is harming Florida’s strawberry production. This is false. Data shows that amid modest warming, Florida’s strawberry production has increased dramatically over the past 30 years. The United States Department of Agriculture reports that Florida strawberry shipments have more than doubled since 2000.

The Fresh Plaza article, “‘Climate change will impact strawberry production in Florida,’” cites a report by the environmental lobbying group, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which claims, based on computer model simulations of future weather under assumed climate conditions, that strawberry production could decline by as much as 17% in some growing counties, driving income losses of more that 10%.

Known shortcomings with computer model projections and real world strawberry production data throw doubt on EDF’s claims.

Based on computer models projections, EDF cites two primary climate changes that it claims threaten Florida’s strawberry crops: higher temperatures and worsening hurricanes. Concerning temperatures, Climate Realism has repeatedly discussed the fact that climate models do not accurately reflect temperatures. They run too hot. If model simulations don’t accurately reflect past and present temperatures, and have since their inception consistently predicted more warming than the Earth has experienced, there is no reason whatsoever to rely on their projections of future temperatures.

Nor as EDF implies, have hurricanes become more of a problem for Florida. Data demonstrates that Atlantic hurricanes have neither increased in number nor severity during the recent period of modest warming.

What about strawberries? Florida is the second largest strawberry producing state, behind only California, although it is a distant second. In 2021, Florida’s strawberry crop generated $399 million in value, accounting for 12% of the United States strawberry crop value as whole, according to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Strawberries are Florida’s top berry crop.

Historically, Florida’s strawberry crop is produced between December and March, but new varieties and better growing conditions have resulted in Florida beginning to produce strawberries in November. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that since 2000, Florida’s strawberry shipments have more than doubled. Indeed, strawberry production is doing so well that the acreage devoted to growing strawberries expanded by 5 percent in 2021 alone.

Although, like other crops, strawberry production waxes and wanes every year, in 2020 in Florida strawberries set a new record for production and 2021’s production, though below 2020’s level, were still above all previous production years going back to 2013.

For the United States as a whole, data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization also shows strawberry production has increased during the recent period of modest warming. Between 1990 and 2021, U.S. strawberry yields increased by more than 99%, setting new records for production 15 times, most recently in 2020. Also between 1990 and 2021, U.S. strawberry production grew by approximately 113%, setting new records production 16 times. Florida was a big part of that. (see the graph, below)

The moral of this story is that Fresh Plaza should check the data before publicizing every “study” a climate alarmist group produces claiming that any particular crop, or agricultural production in general, are being or will be harmed by climate change. Its readers should be happy to learn that Florida strawberry production is doing well, and there is no reason to think it will not continue to flourish in the future, unless fossil fuel use is banned. Existing data refutes claims that climate change is harming strawberry production in Florida or nationwide, and when data and model projections conflict, science says believe the data.

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

In addition to directing The Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, Burett puts Environment & Climate News together, is the editor of Heartland’s Climate Change Weekly email, and the host of the Environment & Climate News Podcast.