Real Scientists Explain Why You Can’t Trust Scientists on Climate

New Study of Satellite Data Demolishes Global Warming Scam — by Robert Gehl

A new study dares to go where most climate scientists fear to tread: challenging global warming.

It suggests that recent climate data showing an increase in global temperatures has not occurred in the atmosphere in more than two decades.

The research, funded by the federal government, shows that by eliminating the climate effects of two massive volcanic eruptions, there has been virtually no change in the rate of global warming since the early 1990s.

Two scientists at the University of Alabama Huntsville actually predicted these results. John Christy and Richard McNidler said that they predicted decades ago that the climate models that were being used were incorrect.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Removing the disturbance caused by the volcanic eruptions, the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade – the same estimate they made in 1994.

If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.

That was unexpectedly close to the 0.09 C warming trend found when similar research was published in 1994 with only 15 years of data, said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center.

The article is sure to be controversial. Christy is a famous climate skeptic and the subject of merciless attacksfrom the scientific community.

Still, he said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

Many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, The Daily Caller reports, but few have challenged the validity of the models themselves.

Of course, there will be intense scrutiny of Christy and McNidler’s report. It also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

The work of the two has been called “shoddy, biased science” that has been given equal footing to “solid, mainstream science.”

“In reality, there should be an immense credibility gap between the climate contrarians who have been consistently wrong and who deny the inconvenient data, and the mainstream climate scientists whose positions are supported by the full body of scientific evidence,” The Guardian writes.

Source :