Global Warming advocates debunk their own theory


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Climate models vs climate reality

The statements and data provided by advocates of human-caused global warming themselves provide strong evidence that their theory of human-caused global warming is wrong.

The article is detailed and includes a lot of hard but easy-to-digest data, such as the graph on the right, which shows how all the computer models predicting global warming have failed to predict the lack of warming for the past eighteen years. (The models predicted the rising colored lines. Actual global temperatures are shown by the black line.) This quote however is a nice summation:

Allow us to cite one more example out of many that could be brought to bear. On June 6, 2007, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition published an analysis of seasonal climate predictions made by the New Zealand Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) showing that the Institute did not even achieve 50 percent accuracy. Director Dr. Jim Renwick’s response was telling. “Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well,” he told the New Zealand Herald. Dr. Renwick, who is an IPCC lead author and a member of the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Climatology Expert Team on Seasonal Forecasting, stated on New Zealand Radio, “The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two.”

This is huge! Phil Jones, a top AGW guru, admits “we don’t know what natural variability is doing,” and Judith Curry says that the climate models are “imperfect and incomplete” and natural causes “dominate” human effects on global temperatures. And IPCC/WMO bigwig Jim Renwick concedes his organization’s climate predictions are wrong more than half the time — and they can’t predict the weather more than two weeks out. Yet, we are supposed to empower national and international politicians and bureaucrats to completely regulate, re-engineer, tax, and regiment human civilization on a planetary scale, based upon the same faulty computer models that have universally, spectacularly failed — over and over again.

I hate to say this, but it appears that the only “deniers of reality” we have in this debate are the political advocates of human-caused global warming, people like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Al Gore, who continue to refuse to recognize the reality that there has been no warming during the past eighteen years.

Share

8 comments

  • Cotour

    I reiterate here that in general the time frame measurements we are talking about in relation to actual consequential climate change is inconsequential. 5 years, 10 years, 18 years etc are not significant or telling numbers IMO. 50, 100, 500, 1000 and 10000 years are where the real story is told about what the earth’s climate is up to.

    Climate warming along with sea level rise over the past 12,000 years is much more telling and pronounced and consequential then the time frame that is focused on by most of the media, politicians and the U.N. “scientists” .

    And I also reiterate here that the actual conversation and focus should be as it should always be on the level of the production of pollution in general by all of those industry’s both large and small and the adaptation of higher technology and better best practice systems in order to lower the production of harmful toxins and other pollutants over time. And that as I understand it is what is happening in America for the most part.

    Where should we look in our modern times as a working example of a real world disaster in the making that does not apply these best practice models? CHINA.

    As they move up the economic ladder. And that can certainly be argued by analyzing the real numbers and seeing how a command economy is self devouring without the direct feed back of a market economy. As they build their military and economy and not give a good crap about their environment and really actually killing their own people, we are disabling and Obamanizing ours. Make sense to anyone? Some.

  • wodun

    I once had someone tell me that while we sucked at predicting the climate in the short term, we were much better in the long term.

    I responded, how do you know since no one has lived long enough to see if the predictions are correct.

    Well, that was some time ago but here we are seeing the predictions do not match real world events.

  • Phil Berardelli

    Actually, the timeframe here is appropriate to the discussion, for this reason: None of the climate models predicted the “pause” phenomenon. Moreover, none of the modelers — some of whom I interviewed over the years and who projected complete confidence in their constructions — has been able to reproduce the pause or explain why it has happened. That means the so-called “science is settled” line is bunk, a falsehood, a lie, and it’s there in plain sight for all to see. Meanwhile, as Bob has been covering every month, solar activity has been slowing. That’s something solar scientists have been predicting for a decade, and the pattern suggests something that happened hundreds of years ago during the Maunder Minimum, aka the Little Ice Age. If the pattern matches, we will see, in just a few more years, that solar activity remains the overwhelming influence on climate, and if anything CO2 emissions are beneficial.

  • Frank

    The longer I live, the more I notice that Soleman was right. There is nothing new under the sun. In my lifetime I have heard an endless stream of claims about the extraordinary times we live in, but in reality, its all happened before and will happen again. The climate and weather gives us much to talk about, but the only certainty is that we are not in control. Enjoy the ride and love your children. That’s what matters.

  • Nicholas Paizis

    I spent 25 years at Intel Corp and modeling complex integrated circuits was a big part of my job. I can say with certainty that we can’t effectively model device behavior for more than a few seconds simulated time, and that’s for something the size of my thumbnail. Are we to believe we can predict the Earth’s climate centuries into the future?

  • Edward

    As the chart shows, the models were already failing within two decades — far fewer than 10,000 day/night cycles. I’m willing to bet that Nicholas’ device simulations were good for far, far more than 10,000 (nanosecond?) cycles.

    The article — and the climatologists’ great number of excuses for what they are calling a “pause” — demonstrates that even they admit that their models are flawed. Models that work would have predicted the “pause.” It is strange that so many people continue using these failed models to predict the future, especially since their predictions do not take into account the “pause,” a phenomenon that they admit is real.

    They are, to use Robert’s phrase, “deniers of reality,” not updating their theories and models to reflect the reality that they admit exists, not resetting the start point to take the “pause” into account, and apparently too much in love with their hypotheses (which they wrongly call “theory” — a theory must pass the reality checks that these have failed) to see that they need to discard or modify them.

    Robert also points out in other posts that data is being modified, without the modification being highlighted and explained for critical analysis by others. Most scientists would call this data “fudged” — a big no no in most sciences, but apparently a common, casual, and accepted occurrence among climatologists.
    (e.g. http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/the-distortion-of-the-global-surface-temperature-datasets/ )

    Until they demonstrate a theory and model that work according to real reality, climatologists are just sources of hot air.

  • Roger

    It’s a hypothesis, not a theory. Big difference.

    There is no such thing as a theory of global warming.

  • Roger

    Oops. I see Edward already said that.

Leave a Reply

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