Err, yes, weren’t we told this?

More muggy evenings as study finds that nights are warming faster than days
Climate change is causing more cloud cover, which means nights are heating up

I thought this is what all the models said would happen? That sure, warming, but largely at night.

You know, that absolute disaster of not much change to day temps and an extra degree maybe on night?

14 thoughts on “Err, yes, weren’t we told this?”

  1. The global average temperature, to the extent that such a concept has any meaning, has been stagnant for over 20 years.

    This downward δ18O anomaly trend suggests a slight cooling for about −0.001 oC decade−1, corroborating the recent hiatus in global warming.

    Wang, R., Liu, Z. Stable Isotope Evidence for Recent Global Warming Hiatus. J. Earth Sci. 31, 419–424 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-019-1239-4

    That’s some serious climate emergency we’re facing.

  2. In Economics, do you usually take the results of several different models and smoosh them together to produce an average? Would that not be logically absurd? That’s what the climate people do.

    And, it’s not only at night, it’s at night in the winter most of all. Which they all know but they don’t include it in the propaganda.

  3. Cause and effect are being got backwards. A warm front causes cloud. Cloud accompanies warm fronts. Correlation. Clouds don’t do the Causing.

  4. Covid technocrats learned a lot from the successes of Warmageddon, that instilled fear makes it hard for people to think rationally.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    There has been no measurable effect from Global Warming in my life time. I do not expect there ever will be.

    Personally I can’t stand warm nights. So I might be a little annoyed if I thought for a second this was true.

  6. Decnine

    “Clouds don’t do the Causing.”

    The warm front causes the clouds, and the clouds do the insulating that prevents the warmth dissipating. Clouds cause heat retention.

  7. In the early days of the Great Climate Con I read some of the original papers. The predictions were indeed for milder temperatures at high latitudes, in winter, at night.

    Oh goody, thought I, a longer growing season. Then I read a bit more carefully and saw that the people doing the work were a bunch of duds. On the other hand, in those early days they didn’t seem to be crooks. The crookedness started with the recognition of a nice little earner.

  8. rhoda

    In Economics, do you usually take the results of several different models and smoosh them together to produce an average? Would that not be logically absurd? That’s what the climate people do.

    I never understood that – take a lot of very different model outcomes wrt sensitivity, average them and then claim that there is a “consensus” around the average (3C)?

  9. The amusing thing about all these models that produce very different predictions for Global Average Temperature is that they all produce almost identical values for the past GAT.

    Because they understand so little about the way the climate works, they have to model the past using parameters for things like clouds, volcanoes, ice cover, etc. etc. Then they keep running the models, tweaking the parameters, running again until they get it roughly correct.

    The joke is that all the models use different values for each parameter and the differences can be pretty large, such that one model might use the value X for a parameter while another will use a value of 1.5X for the same parameter and another will use 5X or even 10X.

    So you have these models, all modelling the past reasonably accurately though by very different calculations and all producing wildly different projections for the future. Then you average this rubbish all together and base the future of the western economy on it.

    How anyone who calls himself a scientist can go along with this garbage is beyond me.

  10. From the IPCC:

    The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible

    But that doesn’t stop them trying.

  11. How anyone who calls himself a scientist can go along with this garbage is beyond me.

    ££££.

    If you’re a scientist in this general area, and you don’t go along with it, you don’t get published in the “reputable” journals.

  12. I know I’ve posted this before, but it bears repetition:

    If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly.

    John von Neumann (1903-1957), a man who knew a great deal about modelling in general and computers in particular.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *