I recently caught the first episode of the new season of Tulsa King. The show, starring Sylvester Stallone, tells the tale of Dwight Manfredi, a high-level Mafioso who, after dutifully serving 20 years in prison rather than ratting, got relegated to Tulsa, OK by a younger generation of mobsters fearful of his abilities and intellect. In this episode, Manfredi gets briefly locked up. While in the holding cell, he meets a fellow who got arrested for scamming $12.5M of "green energy" subsidies. This inspires Manfredi, and I expect this season to delve into that bit of lucre.
These "models" all purported to predict warming based on CO2 levels at the 95th confidence interval starting at the "scam" phase back in the mid to late 90s. The first year, observed readings missed the 95 CI, most by ridiculous margin. Well, that can happen. But it happened again the second year, then the third. So they feed the empirical observations back into the models and come up with "new" predictions, based on the same underlying assumption (CO2 levels "drive" temperature). The same thing happens as the models turn ten years old. So they tweak "feedback mechanisms" to show less warming, but then what happens? More or less, the same thing, though they are getting closer to a 95 CI, but their models now predict "warming" within the noise level of sensor data (perhaps 1.3 - 3.1C over 100 years), so are all but worthless. The underlying problem is that CO2 levels do not "drive" temperature increase, they "follow it" - and that is proven historically over hundreds of millions of years. Of course there will be localized anomalies - like the Jan 21 Hunga Tonga undersea volcano that pumped a 100 billion pounds of evenly distributed water vapor into the atmosphere, increasing stratospheric water vapor content by over 10%. That caused 18 months of significant warming, which ended in late 2023 - hence, 2023 being a very hot year indeed. And CO2, of course, had zilch to do with it.
These "models" all purported to predict warming based on CO2 levels at the 95th confidence interval starting at the "scam" phase back in the mid to late 90s. The first year, observed readings missed the 95 CI, most by ridiculous margin. Well, that can happen. But it happened again the second year, then the third. So they feed the empirical observations back into the models and come up with "new" predictions, based on the same underlying assumption (CO2 levels "drive" temperature). The same thing happens as the models turn ten years old. So they tweak "feedback mechanisms" to show less warming, but then what happens? More or less, the same thing, though they are getting closer to a 95 CI, but their models now predict "warming" within the noise level of sensor data (perhaps 1.3 - 3.1C over 100 years), so are all but worthless. The underlying problem is that CO2 levels do not "drive" temperature increase, they "follow it" - and that is proven historically over hundreds of millions of years. Of course there will be localized anomalies - like the Jan 21 Hunga Tonga undersea volcano that pumped a 100 billion pounds of evenly distributed water vapor into the atmosphere, increasing stratospheric water vapor content by over 10%. That caused 18 months of significant warming, which ended in late 2023 - hence, 2023 being a very hot year indeed. And CO2, of course, had zilch to do with it.
They also "retcon" the historical data... always in the direction that shows more warming.
I blogged about Hunga Tonga, and as I recall, some said the effects could last 3-5 years.
I recall that there was a rush to assure us that Hunga Tonga would *not* affect the climate.
I wonder why... /sarc
Because SUVs. The earth and the sun can’t be doing shit on the their own. 🌞