Global warming scientists admit their models predict too much warming


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.

The uncertainty of science: This week the global warming community was shaken by a new paper, written by global warming scientists, that admitted that their models for global warming have been predicting too much warming.

Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.

This look at that story catches some interesting quotes by these same scientists, who only a few years ago were so certain that the climate was overheating that they wanted to dump freedom and democracy.

According to The Times, another of the paper’s authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise.

At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” [Emphasis mine]

These same global warming scientists were also so certain of the rightness of their earlier models that they had the nerve to call anyone who questioned them “science deniers” in an effort to smear them as no different then Holocaust deniers. Instead, the skeptics have once again proven to be the correct ones.

But then, skepticism is what built science in the first place, not certainty. Certainty is what leads to bad science, and things far more evil.

Share

7 comments

  • Cotour

    And when Oliver Cromwell’s plea has been reasonably answered, then what?

    When “Dogma” turns out to be reality, as it sometimes does, then what? What does Oliver Cromwell indicate in this instance?

  • Edward

    From the first article: “The original forecasts were based on twelve separate computer models made by universities and government institutes around the world, and were put together ten years ago, ‘so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations’, Professor Allen added.

    Wait. It is OK that after only ten years the models are starting to divert from observation? I thought that we were using these models to predict temperatures a century from now, and yet Professor Allen thinks it is to be expected that these models are this far wrong.

    From the first article: “The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, does not play down the threat which climate change has to the environment, and maintains that major reductions in emissions must be attained.

    What is the global warming community coming to when it happily draws the same conclusions even after they discover that the input information is bogus? This reminds me of a similar problem that I had when a former boss was accepting conclusions based on bogus computer inputs: Garbage In, Gospel Out.

    I don’t know if anyone else got this related link while reading the first article, but climate scientists have not taken the disappointment of the “pause” in temperature very well. They decided to recalibrate the satellite data:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-sceptics-satellite-data-correction-global-warming-140-per-cent-zeke-hausfather-a7816676.html
    The orbit of satellites around the Earth gradually decays over time due to friction in the Earth’s atmosphere and this gradually changes the time they pass over any one spot and this obviously has a significant effect on the temperature. …
    This change is primarily due to the changes in the adjustment for drifting local measurement time.

    This is a bogus excuse. Before they launched these satellites, they knew that they would pass over different parts of the planet at different local times, and they knew about orbital perturbation before they launched their satellites. If they did not set up their methods to account for these two phenomena, then they are poor scientists.

    The measurement is not based upon a comparison of satellite measurement with local spot measurement, but is based upon the average temperature measured over the whole planet. They are trying to fool us into believing that something is happening that requires adjustment, yet nothing is happening at all.

    It does not matter whether they pass over any one spot at an exact time of day, as they are not concerned with maximum or minimum temperatures of any spot on the planet. Their excuse to change the temperature readings is completely bogus. And they know it.

    Robert has noted before that the satellite data has been tampered with:
    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-tampering-of-climate-data-at-noaa-and-nasa/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/as-predicted-climate-scientists-begin-adjusting-satellite-data-to-fit-models/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/new-adjustments-to-early-satellite-data-confirm-accelerating-sea-level-rise/

    A major problem with climate science is that with the past adjustment of ground measurements and the current adjustments of satellite measurements, the climate scientists have effectively claimed that all of the temperature measurements that they now have are unreliable. Yet they continue to draw conclusions based upon modifications of data that they have implicitly declared to be unreliable. Because of the flawed reasoning for the modifications, the modifications only add more uncertainty to the data.

    In essence, the climate scientists can only conclude, from their own logic, that all previous temperature data must be thrown out and that our only hope of understanding Earth’s temperature is to begin collecting proper data from this time forward. Assuming we have figured out how to properly collect reliable temperature data. After all, if the method for collecting satellite data is flawed, how to we collect reliable data?

  • wayne

    Edward-
    good stuff.

  • Joe

    They are only partially walking back a lie, are they hoping that the people who believe in real science will simply agree? Their lies should never be accepted!

  • wodun

    Its not too long ago that they were saying the models were not aggressive enough in their predictions.

  • wodun

    Edward
    September 20, 2017 at 6:53 pm

    Wait. It is OK that after only ten years the models are starting to divert from observation? I thought that we were using these models to predict temperatures a century from now, and yet Professor Allen thinks it is to be expected that these models are this far wrong.

    I find it totally unsurprising that the alarmists are unconcerned with these diversions while they want us to change all societies globally over minuscule temperature changes. How many degrees of temperature do their predictions have to be off before it calls into question their worries over tenths of a degree of temperature change?

  • Edward

    wodun wrote: “I find it totally unsurprising that the alarmists are unconcerned with these diversions

    It isn’t so much the alarmists that worry me, it is the scientists who should know better.

    wodun asked: “How many degrees of temperature do their predictions have to be off before it calls into question their worries over tenths of a degree of temperature change?

    It isn’t the variation of a certain number of degrees of temperature that determines the skill of a model, it is whether it can predict within an amount of uncertainty. Several years ago, almost all the global temperature models deviated from that allowable uncertainty range, showing that they are not nearly good enough to set policy. Especially when that policy will cost trillions of dollars in direct costs and indirectly cost trillions more in lost productivity.

    Not only do the models have to do better at predicting future reality, but we need to be assured that the measured temperatures (the reality) are also reliably correct. As I noted above, the scientists have implied that the measurements are not reliable, mainly because the measurements fall outside the models’ prediction ranges. In a way, the scientists are caught up in circular logic caused by confirmation bias. They should know better and be on the watch for such violations of science. It is one of the many reasons for peer review.

Leave a Reply

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