Skip to comments.Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong
Posted on 02/12/2014 6:21:54 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong
Posted By Michael Bastasch On 3:30 PM 02/11/2014 Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies have failed miserably. Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).
I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like most warming since the 1950s is human caused or 97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading, Spencer wrote on his blog.
Climate scientists have been baffled by the 17-year pause in global warming. At least eight explanations have been offered to explain the lapse in warming, including declining solar activity and natural climate cycles.
Some scientists have even argued that increased coal use in China has caused the planet to cool slightly. But there does not seem to be any solid agreement on what caused global surface temperatures to stop rising.
The latest explanation from climate scientists is that Pacific trade winds have caused the planet to stop warming. Stronger winds in the last two decades may have forced warmer water deeper while bringing cooler water to the surface.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I’m guessing that many of the “models” are somewhat sound in principle and theory (as far as that has progressed).
My contention is that they are filled with specious and BS assumptions - along with fake data, data sets with large omissions (ones that don’t support a desired outcome, etc.).
This is what Mann, Hansen and Jones were trying to do (and did).
Well, that seems entirely consistent to me as Al Gore is wrong 95% of the time. Remarkably, Gore’s fellow liberal travelers are wrong 99% of the time so I guess science really is pretty reliable after all.
What difference at this point does it make?
Well, if 95% of models don’t agree with the data, the data must be wrong. </sarc>
Well then, 95% were doctored/paid off by the zero administration.
That’s an inconvenient consensus!
Trash in....Trash out....
The real lesson learned here is that the lure of federal research grant money is just too powerful for researchers, so they compromise data and methods.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
How difficult can this be?
It’s a computer. Garbage in, garbage out.
A model takes into consideration only a part of the overall data, and therefore can not be 100% accurate.
Roy Spencer ping
Most of the computer models are built in reverse order. First you conclude that something is happening and then you construct equations and models that will reach that conclusion. When you find a flaw in the model, you alter it as necessary to keep the conclusion the same.
East Anglia University in the UK is the capital for climate science. Several years ago it was discovered in one of their equations that an element was off by a factor of 3000. That means 3000 times what it should have been. Six months later they came back with the equation fixed. Multiple variables were changed so that the answer stayed the same.
Desperation as their Titanic sinks. The fundamental mis-understanding of oceanic currents and the ability of the seas to store energy is lost on these morons. Or, if viewed with a more nefarious lens, they would appear to be deliberately lying to the people of Earth in order to further their agenda. Either scenario should lead to their being impeached from public office (in the case of a politician) or stripped of their tenure and thrown out of their teaching positions.
What difference at this point does it make?
Actually it doesnt really make a difference since even the modelers admit that it is too late to do anything meaningful short of shutting off virtually all CO2 emmissions immediately. Clearly that is not going to happen and would result in a bigger catastrophe than they are predicting. In that case the true believers should focus their attention on eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere or mitigating what they THINK the consequences will be.
Bingo. This is how “research” is done.
In true science when the theoretical models do not fit the observed data especially to this extent the models are discarded and new theories are made. However man caused global warming is a cult with dogma that cannot be challenged. The cultists will resort to every sophistry to try to prove their theory to be right despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary or simply call anyone who does not follow their belief deniers (i.e. heretics). I think Al Gore needs to fly his private jet over the now frozen Great Lakes and the snow and ice covered south to see the real inconvenient truth.
If a kid steals a $50 watch from a department store he is going to jail with a Felony!
How many millions have these people stolen?
That’s the way Hansen (NASA), MANN (PSU) and JONES (EA-CRU), do it.
The scientific way to build a model is to start with theoretical physics - formulas, accepted algorithms, et al and then populate the model with raw (unfiltered, unadulterated, all data available) and then examine the results and try to confirm with empirical data, or more commonly, experienced actual data that have not been ‘fudged’.
Concurrent with this line, full disclosure and publication and intensive peer review with the goal to find fault or disprove. HANSEN, MANN and JONES have never done any of this in an above-board manner, IN MY OPINION. It was and likely is still the same mode of operation.