today’s tweets Science

This is one of those inaccurate and stupid statements made about the climate debate. Skeptics and Alarmists have from the very beginning agreed the climate has been warming. The Alarmist arguments that it is human driven. ContinuedQuote Tweet

Doug Cottrell 


@DCottrell1956 · 15hReplying to @BadgersNo @TheDisproof and 43 othersThe debate about WHETHER there is climate change is long past. It is happening. It is in the news. The changes have primary and secondary and tertiary impacts.

The skeptics are not as certain what human role is and whether C02 is the driving force. If one looks at the actual empiric evidence, it favors the skeptics from the failure of computer models and overall failed predictions by alarmists on what the nature of the planet would be.

The Planet is greening (there is a debate on why including human conservation actions and slight increase of C02 aiding planet growth) and we are feeding more people and more people are living above the poverty line so the disaster predicted for our planet have failed to happen.

The irony is that countries that having problems are those countries that followed many of the policy recommendations of alarmist of heavy dose of government policies

In states or countries that depend more on wind and solar tend to have less dependable and more expensive energy. Those countries that depend upon nuclear, fossil fuels or hydro have more dependable energy sources and less expensive.

Alarmist policies have always included higher energy prices to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear so the cost of energy going up is not a surprise but part of the policies. Note: most people when confronted with cost don’t like it.

Skeptics as a group tend to believe in market approaches (even though there are liberal or leftist views on the economy) and those market approach will work to reduce pollution and C02 emissions. Plus allow the economy to grow and produce.

Some believers in AGW like Michael Shellenberger agrees with some of the Skeptics approaches as he has openly questioned the push to wind and solar and favors a more traditional approach including nuclear energy.

This is not a debate about warming but why it is warming, why it warmed in the past and best approach to provide energy policies that is a clean as possible while allowing economic growth. Alarmists like to bring up straw men that don’t exist. Thus their dishonesty.

From Swampgirl : History denied & Lorentide. Glacial maxima & interglacial periods. Our path around the sun has created the freeze or burn. 10,000 years ago during such time, the Earth came closest to the sun in July. The Northern hemisphere got 8% more radiation in summer than it does today.

More Bear News

Why be skeptical? Here is a thought, you think Polar Bears won’t adjust to the conditions around them and the Artic ocean will ice free or whatever and you find several years later, you find the bears are thriving and doing well.

Studies have shown the Bear population has stablished or increased, not dropped by 67% as predicted. (some keep predicting drops but considering past record, one has to be skeptical. ) Would you think great, the Bears are surviving

Instead of celebrating, you fire the scientist found this be true and try to prove the opposite. That is why climate science, which is relatively new, needs to question. It has been hijacked by political activists with PHD and activists with an agenda.

Why I am skeptical

The number one thing often missing in economics is not taking human ingenuity in account. That is why we are feeding more people today or that the world has become wealthier. Part of it began with Reagan Revolution and collapsed of Communism. India began its own reform.

South Korea showed what happens when markets are allowed as this country went from being one of the poorest to one of the richest within 50 years.

The biggest threat that we have is reversing the trends that made up for this success. We won’t see famine or poverty as result of a warmer planet but if we retreat from economic freedom and move toward socialism in the West and the developed countries.

The threat from warmer planet is overrated (look up the history and you will see humans in the past did better when the planet was warmer. It is recorded in the history book. ) More people die in colder weather than warmer and science backs that up.

Markets, Energy

This represent a serious of tweets on Energy with another individual.

It is amazing that over the years, we were told we are running out of energy but yet we keep finding even more.… This individual is wrong for so many reason and one reason Bonus doesn’t understand free market or study the energy market over the past decades

FROM Bonus i Sorry to burst your somewhat fragile bubble but fossil fuels are going to be replaced whether you like it ir not. Reason: they are finite and over 90% of the population of the world is covered by governments who signed up to the Paris accord.

From Bonus What year will we run out of fossil fuels? Do you understand the exponential growth function?

Me: Not anytime soon, do you not understand economics? Note also that if you examine past predictions of what we have left, it often UNDERESTIMATED energy sources. So you are debating the wrong person, I read your data and mine is superior. We are nowhere near running out.

Bonus Then what year? At what rate of annual growth in consumption?

Me: Well tell me what year do you predict? Let me explain this so even you can understand. We don’t know since we are finding more than expected with newer technology like fracking. So if you can’t answer the questions and you can’t, then history is our guide.

Bonus The problem you have is exponential growth. Do you know why?

Me: You are working on the assumption that we have a specific finite materials and refuse to see that we are finding more than original predictions. If you predict x and we find y which is triple of x, due to new technology then we have totally different scenario.

I find your point of exponential growth irrelevant since we have not clue what we will be able to find at the right price. What is expensive to find today is not tomorrow, then we find more. Your exponential growth is based that you think we have x amount.

We are at impasse since you coming from we have a limited amount and I am making the point that what we think we have today UNDERESTIMATE what we might have since new technology may find more price reasonable. I get your point

Just look at population, we were told for 200 plus years we have finite resources to support population but we find that due to human ingenuity, we find more resources supporting growing population. Exponential growth in population theories have already been proven wrong.


The following are tweets directed to a twitter friend about the firing of Susan Crockford who destroyed the mythology that Polar Bears are decreasing in numbers due to climate change and Michael Mann lawsuit against Tim Ball.

What I find fascinating is that Mann and others can equate Climate Skeptics with Holocaust deniers (thus the origin of the term deniers) and others phrases but criticized these guys, it becomes a court case. They can dish it out but not take it.

Plus their strategy of lawsuits is to bankrupt their opponents or silence them since they are not interested in a scientific debate. If they had a fair scientific debate, they would lose.

I would invite anyone to see various interchanges that alarmists get involved in with skeptics, alarmist more often lose. Even when they set the rules of engagement, their science is inferior.

I have seen Marc Moreno destroy scientists with ease. Most alarmist won’t debate skeptics and even Galvin Schmidt won’t go face to face after losing to Lindzen a few years back. If Skeptics science is weak, they should not be able to hold their own or defeat alarmists.

Finally the various thread I follow, I notice how these same alarmist who talk we must worship science supported the firing of Crockford and no where to be seen to defend academic freedom when Ridd was fired.

Yes not one alarmists on these threads found any mistakes with Crockford’s work. Enough said.

My tweet from October 4th on the end of the world.

I will be busy all day so this is tweet of the morning and afternoon. Yesterday I commented on this and while many question this poor lady sanity, my own view is that her desperation is driven by many things. First she has been told repeatedly that the world is ending.

The Donelson Files@Donelsonfiles · 11hJonathan Swift once wrote a satire on Irish needing to eat their babies but this lady is not doing a Swift satire she is serious.

She is being told we have 12 years left by some, 10 years by others and 5 years by yet others. She is being told the world is ending and only a radical transformation of our society can save us. If it doesn’t happen it is all over.

Poor Greta Thunberg is another who reflects this teaching. Pushed by her parents and outsiders, this poor gal is leading a crusade that quite frankly she has very knowledge of including the science but she is scared because the adults in her life LIED TO her and others.

Here are the solutions suggested by journals, politicians including Presidential candidates as both causing climate change and implying must be stopped: Eating meat (Even Democrats presidential candidates stated eating meat as a cause of climate change)

They have called to change our diet. Move to higher ground, put mirrors into space to reflect the sun away from the planet. Your loyal dog and friendly cat are causing climate change and won’t be long they will outlaw pets. (Maybe you can eat Fido to go with the baby)

(I will add that much of the population control needed to save the planet is directed as countries with people of color as if Asians, Africans and Hispanics throughout the world are responsible for climate change. We are bringing back eugenics and maybe this might be racist,)

No nuclear, no fossil fuels, and an economy where we will be back to horse and buggy, provided horses will be allowed. (ps Any serious expert will tell you, there is no way an modern economy can run on wind and solar without nuclear or fossil fuels as back up.)

Note the word serious experts, since we have plenty of not so serious experts. The irony is that much of the science undergirding this is questionable science and imploding but you won’t read that in New York Times.

Since the end of the 1960’s. I have seen five end of the world scenario that did not come true. Much of the environmental disasters predicted has not only not happen the complete opposite what they foreseen did happen.

In spite of politicians world wide, we are feeding more people better, more people have escaped poverty than ever before, The planet is actually getting greener. Much of this is due to human ingenuity and maybe also due to a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

The world is not ending or even remotely close. The only thing that will reverse this is stupid policies like the green new deal. You can say a asteroid can hit this planet and end life as we know as it may have 65 million years ago but that is a long shot.

Here is not going to happen in the next twelve years if we continue use fossil fuels, nuclear energy, search for new energy sources that is both plentiful and inexpensive to us. We will not fry to death.

If the right policies are instituted world wide and free markets prevail, more prosperity, more people leaving poverty, more people becoming middle class, even better diets. The world will be just fine, if not better.

The problem we have is not too many people using resources but too many socialists scaring people into policies that denies basic freedoms and end of human ingenuity. We should be honest with our children, the world will be just fine. Period.

From Institute Of Energy Research

As the chart shows: the average LCOEs from existing coal ($41), cc gas ($36), nuclear ($33), and hydro ($38) resources are less than half the cost of new wind resources ($90) or new PV solar resources ($88.7) with imposed costs included.

Tom Pyle, President of the Institute for Energy Research stated:
“This study illustrates why foolish policies like the Green New Deal and 100% renewable mandates would harm our economy and significantly raise the cost of electricity for American households. Shifting our electricity generation away from existing affordable and reliable plants to expensive and intermittent wind and solar would substantially increase energy costs for businesses and families. This study provides a necessary reality check for anyone making decisions about America’s electricity policy.”
Michelle Bloodworth, President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy (ACCCE) said:
“This new study is unique because it provides an apples-to-apples comparison of existing and new electricity sources. The study shows that policymakers should carefully consider levelized costs when decisions are being made to retire coal-fired power plants because replacing them with gas, wind or solar could be a bad economic decision.”

From CEI Worth reading

From CEI

Bjorn Lomborg and John Christy Shred Climate Alarmism

Marlo Lewis, Jr. • June 6, 2019

The latest talking point of progressive politicians, pundits, and activists is that America cannot afford not to spend trillions of dollars to “solve the climate crisis” because global warming is an existential threat. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake, OK?”

Abysmal Benefit-Cost Ratio

That is sham wisdom even if climate change were the terror Sen. Sanders imagines it to be. The resources available to public and private decision makers are finite. Resources allocated to “climate action” are no longer available to make mortgage payments, pay college tuitions, grow food, fund medical innovation, or build battleships. Prudent policymakers therefore not only consider the costs of policy proposals but also compare the different benefit-cost ratios of competing expenditures. As it happens, the benefit-cost ratios of carbon suppression policies are abysmal.

For example, just the direct expense of the electric sector portion of the Green New Deal would, conservatively estimated, cost $490.5 billion per year, or $3,845 per year per household, according to American Enterprise Institute economist Benjamin Zycher. Yet even complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C of global warming 70 years from now—a policy impact too small to discernibly affect weather patterns, crop yields, polar bear populations, or any other environmental condition people care about.

The climate “benefit” over the next 10 years would be even more miniscule. Yet during that period, Zycher estimates, the annual economic cost of the GND electric sector program would be about $9 trillion. It is unwise to spend so much to achieve so little.

No Planetary Emergency

The doomsday interpretation of climate change is a political doctrine, not a scientific finding, as Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg shows in a recent series of tweets and University of Alabama in Huntsville atmospheric scientist John Christyexplains in a new paper titled “Falsifying Climate Alarm.”

In the aforementioned tweets, Lomborg rebuts an op-ed by Nobel economist Joseph Stigletz, who advocates spending trillions of dollars annually to combat climate change, which he calls “our World War III.” As evidence, Stigletz claims that in recent years weather-related damages cost the U.S. economy 2 percent of GDP—a figure for which he gives no reference.

Lomborg deftly sets the record straight. Aon Benfield reinsurers estimate that during 2000-2017, weather-related damages cost the United States about $88 billion annually, or 0.48 percent of GDP per year, not 2 percent. More importantly, extreme weather is a natural feature of the Earth’s climate system. The vast majority of those damages would have occurred with or without climate change. “Does Stiglitz believe there is no bad weather without climate change?” Lomborg asks.

In the United States, hurricanes are the biggest cause of weather-related damages. Hurricanes have become more costly over the past 120 years but not because of any long-term change in the weather. Once historic losses are adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and the consumer price index, U.S. hurricane-related damages show no trend since 1900.

The past three decades are generally agreed to be the warmest in the instrumental record. Yet during that period, damages due to all forms of extreme weather as a share of global GDP declined. In other words, despite there being many more people and lots more stuff in harm’s way, the relative economic impact of extreme weather is decreasing. It is difficult to reconcile that trend with claims that ours is an “unsustainable” civilization.

Lomborg provides an even more telling rebuttal point in a previous Tweet. Since the 1920s, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations increased from about 305 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, and global average temperatures increased by about 1°C. Yet globally, the individual risk of dying from weather-related disasters declined by 99 percent.

Stigletz claims we cannot afford not to spend trillions to mitigate climate change because “our lives and our civilization as we know it is at stake, just as they were in World War II.” Lomborg notes that in the peer-reviewed literature, unchecked climate change is estimated to cost 2-4 percent of global GDP in 2100. That “is not the end of the world,” especially considering that, despite climate change, global per capital incomes in 2100 are expected to be 5-10 times larger than today.

Ironically, in the “socio-economic pathways” (SSPs) literature, the richest SSP is the one that relies most on free markets and fossil fuels.

Source: Keywan Rhiahi et al. 2017. “This world [SSP5] places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. . . . At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world.”   

John Christy’s new paper, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, summarizes two of his recent peer-reviewed studies. In 2017, Christy and fellow atmospheric scientist Richard McKnider examined 37.5 years of satellite data in the global troposphere (bulk atmosphere). Christy and McNider factored out the warming effects of El Ninõ and the cooling effects volcanic aerosol emissions. The underlying greenhouse warming trend—the dark line (e) in the figure below—is 0.095°C per decade, or about one-fourth the rate forecast by former NASA scientist James Hansen, whose congressional testimony launched the global warming movement in 1988.

Christy and McNider estimate that when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double, global warming will reach 1.1°C—a quantity called “transient climate response.” Christy comments:

This is not a very alarming number. If we perform the same calculation on the climate models, you get a figure of 2.31°C, which is significantly different. The models’ response to carbon dioxide is twice what we see in the real world. So the evidence indicates the consensus range for climate sensitivity is incorrect.

In 2018, Christy and economist Ross McKitrick set out to test the accuracy of climate models. They examined model projections in the atmosphere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, in the tropics from 20°N to 20°S. The atmosphere warms fastest in that portion of the atmosphere in almost all models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such as the Canadian Climate Centre model, shown below.

In 102 model runs, the average warming in the “hot spot” portion of the tropical atmosphere is 0.44°C per decade, or 2°C during 1979-2017. “However, the real-world warming is much lower; around one third of the model average,” Christy reports.

Christy sums up the test results:

You can also easily see the difference in warming rates: the models are warming too fast. The exception is the Russian model, which has much lower sensitivity to carbon dioxide, and therefore gives projections for the end of the century that are far from alarming. The rest of them are already falsified, and their predictions for 2100 can’t be trusted. If an engineer built an airplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he wouldn’t say ‘Hey, I was only off by a factor of three’. We don’t do that in engineering and real science. A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models.

Statements like the following are increasingly common in popular media, academic journals, and political discourse: “The evidence that anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to our way of life is incontrovertible.” Not so—not even close.

The Problem with Computer Models

Below are studies dealing with the problems of computer modeling and figuring climate change.

Collins et al., 2018     Here there is a dynamical gap in our understanding. While we have conceptual models of how weather systems form and can predict their evolution over days to weeks, we do not have theories that can adequately explain the reasons for an extreme cold or warm, or wet or dry, winter at continental scales. More importantly, we do not have the ability to credibly predict such states. Likewise, we can build and run complex models of the Earth system, but we do not have adequate enough understanding of the processes and mechanisms to be able to quantitatively evaluate the predictions and projections they produce, or to understand why different models give different answers. … The global warming ‘hiatus’ provides an example of a climate event potentially related to inter-basin teleconnections. While decadal climate variations are expected, the magnitude of the recent event was unforeseen. A decadal period of intensified trade winds in the Pacific and cooler sea surface temperatures (SSTs) has been identified as a leading candidate mechanism for the global slowdown in warming.

Christy et al., 2018     [A]s new versions of the datasets are produced, trend magnitudes have changed markedly, for example the central estimate of the global trend of the mid-troposphere in Remote Sensing System’s increased 60% from +0.078 to +0.125°C decade−1, between consecutive versions 3.3 and 4.0 (Mears and Wentz 2016). … As an experiment, Mears et al. recalculated the RSS overall trend by simply truncating NOAA-14 data after 1999 (which reduced their long-term trend by 0.02 K decade−1). However, this does not address the problem that the trends of the entire NOAA-12 and −14 time series (i.e. pre-2000) are likely too positive and thus still affect the entire time series. Additionally, the evidence from the Australian and U.S. VIZ comparisons support the hypothesis that RSS contains extra warming (due to NOAA-12, −14 warming.) Overall then, this analysis suggests spurious warming in the central estimate trend of RSS of at least +0.04°C decade−1, which is consistent with results shown later based on other independent constructions for the tropical belt. … When examining all of the evidence presented here, i.e. the correlations, magnitude of errors and trend comparisons, the general conclusion is that UAH data tend to agree with (a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so, than the other three [NOAA, RSS, UW]. … One key result here is that substantial evidence exists to show that the processed data from NOAA-12 and −14 (operating in the 1990s) were affected by spurious warming that impacted the four datasets, with UAH the least affected due to its unique merging process. RSS, NOAA and UW show considerably more warming in this period than UAH and more than the US VIZ and Australian radiosondes for the period in which the radiosonde instrumentation did not change. … [W]e estimate the global TMT trend is +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1. … The rate of observed warming since 1979 for the tropical atmospheric TMT layer, which we calculate also as +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1, is significantly less than the average of that generated by the IPCC AR5 climate model simulations. Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate.

Abbott and Marohasy, 2018     While general circulation models are used by meteorological agencies around the world for rainfall forecasting, they do not generally perform well at forecasting medium-term rainfall, despite substantial efforts to enhance performance over many years. These are the same models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to forecast climate change over decades. Though recent studies suggest ANNs [artificial neural networks] have considerable application here, including to evaluate natural versus climate change over millennia, and also to better understand equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Guo et al., 2018    The snow‐albedo feedback is a crucial component in high‐altitude cryospheric change but is poorly quantified over the Third Pole, encompassing the Karakoram and Tibetan Plateau. … [I]t is noteworthy that the magnitude of the constrained strength is only half of the unconstrained model estimate for the Third Pole, suggesting that current climate models generally overestimate the feedback of spring snow change to temperature changebased on the unmitigated scenario.

Scafetta et al., 2018     The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014.Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT [anthropogenic global warming theory] are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.

Kundzewicz et al., 2018     Climate models need to be improved before they can be effectively used for adaptation planning and design. Substantial reduction of the uncertainty range would require improvement of our understanding of processes implemented in models and using finer resolution of GCMs and RCMs. However, important uncertainties are unlikely to be eliminated or substantially reduced in near future (cf. Buytaert et al., 2010). Uncertainty in estimation of climate sensitivity (change of global mean temperature, corresponding to doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration) has not decreased considerably over last decades. Higher resolution of climate input for impact models requires downscaling (statistical or dynamic) of GCM outputs, adding further uncertainty. … [C]limate models do not currently simulate the water cycle at sufficiently fine resolution for attribution of catchment-scale hydrological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. It is expected that climate models and impact models will become better integrated in the future. … Calibration and validation of a hydrological model should be done before applying it for climate change impact assessment, to reduce the uncertainty of results. Yet, typically, global hydrological models are not calibrated and validated. … Model-based projections of climate change impact on water resources can largely differ. If this is the case, water managers cannot have confidence in an individual scenario or projection for the future. Then, no robust, quantitative, information can be delivered and adaptation procedures need to be developed which use identified projection ranges and uncertainty estimates. Moreover, there are important, nonclimatic, factors affecting future water resources. … As noted by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1990), in the past, science was assumed to provide “hard” results in quantitative form, in contrast to “soft” determinants of politics, that were interest-driven and value-laden. Yet, the traditional assumption of the certainty of scientific information is now recognized as unrealistic and counterproductive. Policy-makers have to make “hard” decisions, choosing between conflicting options (with commitments and stakes being the primary focus), using “soft” scientific information that is bound with considerable uncertainty. Uncertainty has been policitized in that policy-makers have their own agendas that can include the manipulation of uncertainty. Parties in a policy debate may invoke uncertainty in their arguments selectively, for their own advantage.

Lean, 2018     Climate change detection and attribution have proven unexpectedly challenging during the 21st century. Earth’s global surface temperature increased less rapidly from 2000 to 2015 than during the last half of the 20th century, even though greenhouse gas concentrations continued to increase. A probable explanation is the mitigation of anthropogenic warming by La Niña cooling and declining solar irradiance. Physical climate models overestimated recent global warming because they did not generate the observed phase of La Niña cooling and may also have underestimated cooling by declining solar irradiance. Ongoing scientific investigations continue to seek alternative explanations to account for the divergence of simulated and observed climate change in the early 21st century, which IPCC termed a “global warming hiatus.” … Understanding and communicating the causes of climate change in the next 20 years may be equally challenging. Predictions of the modulation of projected anthropogenic warming by natural processes have limited skill. The rapid warming at the end of 2015, for example, is not a resumption of anthropogenic warming but rather an amplification of ongoing warming by El Niño. Furthermore, emerging feedbacks and tipping points precipitated by, for example, melting summer Arctic sea ice may alter Earth’s global temperature in ways that even the most sophisticated physical climate models do not yet replicate.

Hunziker et al., 2018     About 40% of the observations are inappropriate for the calculation of monthly temperature means and precipitation sums due to data quality issues. These quality problems undetected with the standard quality control approach strongly affect climatological analyses, since they reduce the correlation coefficients of station pairs, deteriorate the performance of data homogenization methods, increase the spread of individual station trends, and significantly bias regional temperature trends. Our findings indicate that undetected data quality issues are included in important and frequently used observational datasets and hence may affect a high number of climatological studies. It is of utmost importance to apply comprehensive and adequate data quality control approaches on manned weather station records in order to avoid biased results and large uncertainties.
Roach et al., 2018     Consistent biases in Antarctic sea ice concentration simulated by climate models … The simulation of Antarctic sea ice in global climate models often does not agree with observations. [M]odels simulate too much loose, low-concentration sea ice cover throughout the year, and too little compact, high-concentration cover in the summer. [C]urrent sea ice thermodynamics contribute to the inadequate simulation of the low-concentration regime in many models.
Scanlon et al., 2018     The models underestimate the large decadal (2002–2014) trends in water storage relative to GRACE satellites, both decreasing trends related to human intervention and climate and increasing trends related primarily to climate variations. The poor agreement between models and GRACE underscores the challenges remaining for global models to capture human or climate impacts on global water storage trends. … Increasing TWSA [total water storage anomalies] trends are found primarily in nonirrigated basins, mostly in humid regions, and may be related to climate variations. Models also underestimate median GRACE increasing trends (1.6–2.1 km3/y) by up to a factor of 8 in GHWRMs [global hydrological and water resource models] (0.3–0.6 km3/y). Underestimation of GRACE-derived TWSA increasing trends is much greater for LSMs [global land surface models], with four of the five LSMs [global land surface models] yielding opposite trends (i.e., median negative rather than positive trends) … Increasing GRACE trends are also found in surrounding basins, with most models yielding negative trends. Models greatly underestimate the increasing trends in Africa, particularly in southern Africa. .. TWSA trends from GRACE in northeast Asia are generally increasing, but many models show decreasing trends, particularly in the Yenisei. … Subtracting the modeled human intervention contribution from the total land water storage contribution from GRACE results in an estimated climate-driven contribution of −0.44 to −0.38 mm/y. Therefore, the magnitude of the estimated climate contribution to GMSL [global mean sea level] is twice that of the human contribution and opposite in sign.While many previous studies emphasize the large contribution of human intervention to GMSL [global mean sea level], it has been more than counteracted by climate-driven storage increase on land over the past decade. … GRACE-positive TWSA trends (71 km3/y) contribute negatively (−0.2 mm/y) to GMSL, slowing the rate of rise of GMSL, whereas models contribute positively to GMSL, increasing the rate of rise of GMSL.