With the IPCC summary released a few days ago, we learned that this international body was unable to explain the now 17 year pause in atmospheric warming across our planet while at the same time announcing that the computer models (which did not predict that temperature trend) are at least 95% accurate. That's ridiculous. These computer models produce predictions with a margin of error. In other words, if the model predicts an average temperature of 59 degrees (Farenheit), it actually is predicting that the temperature will be within a certain range centered on 59 degrees. For example, any average temperature between 57 and 61 degrees might meet the predicted result. (All of these numbers are just used for illustration. They are not the actual predictions or margin of error.) The problem with the models over the last 17 years, however, is not that they have missed the precise average temperature; rather, it is that the observed temperatures are moving now outside the margin of error of the prediction. Using the above numbers to illustrate, it is that average temperatures are now at 56 degrees which falls outside the predicted range. Simply put, the computer models have failed to predict the actual climate.
A one year variation of this sort would be troubling, but not a major problem. Everyone understands that weather is variable and so some misses are to be expected. Even a five year period with misses both above and below the expected trend would not be that big a deal. But that is not what the data reveals. For nearly two decades now, the average atmospheric temperature has been pretty much steady; in other words, the climate models have consistently predicted higher numbers than the actual results from observations. To anyone other than someone who "believes" in climate change as a religion, the observations prove that the models are not 95% accurate, but wholly wrong.
The focus of the computer models is the increase in carbon dioxide from the activities of man. We know that carbon dioxide has increased during the relevant period since we have actual measurements that confirm this. The lack of any increase in temperature, however, also indicates pretty clearly that the models and the whole global warming crowd have gotten the relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature WRONG. Indeed, these actual temperatures indicate that something other than the dreaded carbon footprint of man is at work governing the global climate.
A one year variation of this sort would be troubling, but not a major problem. Everyone understands that weather is variable and so some misses are to be expected. Even a five year period with misses both above and below the expected trend would not be that big a deal. But that is not what the data reveals. For nearly two decades now, the average atmospheric temperature has been pretty much steady; in other words, the climate models have consistently predicted higher numbers than the actual results from observations. To anyone other than someone who "believes" in climate change as a religion, the observations prove that the models are not 95% accurate, but wholly wrong.
The focus of the computer models is the increase in carbon dioxide from the activities of man. We know that carbon dioxide has increased during the relevant period since we have actual measurements that confirm this. The lack of any increase in temperature, however, also indicates pretty clearly that the models and the whole global warming crowd have gotten the relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature WRONG. Indeed, these actual temperatures indicate that something other than the dreaded carbon footprint of man is at work governing the global climate.
No comments:
Post a Comment