New climate model works better, but doesn’t!
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 or below. 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.
Image from Junk Science. I indicated the pause
The uncertainty of science: Scientists have developed a new computer climate model that does a better job of predicting the actual climate, until you get to the pause in warming during the past 18 years. The graph on the right, from the paper, shows the model’s prediction compared to the raw data. The two line up perfectly, until around 1998, when the pause or hiatus in global warming began. From that point, the model fails.
I especially like this quote from the press release, made by one of the paper’s two authors:
“Most of the difference between the raw data and new estimates is found during the recent 18 years since 1998,” said Xie. “Because of the hiatus, the raw data underestimate the greenhouse warming.” [emphasis mine]
Note how he reverses things. For him, the raw data is wrong, as it underestimates their perfect model of human-caused greenhouse warming. In reality, it is their model that has failed, as it fails to predict the pause in warming, showing that it must be missing important factors that are influencing the climate. Or as physicist Richard Feynmann so cogently put it,
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Note also that this research paper, released today, recognizes the pause, which shows again that the claims by some scientists that the pause did not exist have not been convincing to other climate scientists. This in turn once again illustrates the overall uncertainty of this field of science.
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 or below. 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.
Image from Junk Science. I indicated the pause
The uncertainty of science: Scientists have developed a new computer climate model that does a better job of predicting the actual climate, until you get to the pause in warming during the past 18 years. The graph on the right, from the paper, shows the model’s prediction compared to the raw data. The two line up perfectly, until around 1998, when the pause or hiatus in global warming began. From that point, the model fails.
I especially like this quote from the press release, made by one of the paper’s two authors:
“Most of the difference between the raw data and new estimates is found during the recent 18 years since 1998,” said Xie. “Because of the hiatus, the raw data underestimate the greenhouse warming.” [emphasis mine]
Note how he reverses things. For him, the raw data is wrong, as it underestimates their perfect model of human-caused greenhouse warming. In reality, it is their model that has failed, as it fails to predict the pause in warming, showing that it must be missing important factors that are influencing the climate. Or as physicist Richard Feynmann so cogently put it,
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Note also that this research paper, released today, recognizes the pause, which shows again that the claims by some scientists that the pause did not exist have not been convincing to other climate scientists. This in turn once again illustrates the overall uncertainty of this field of science.
Well stated Mr. Z!
“Feynman on Scientific Method” (10 minutes)
[Cornell Messenger Lectures]
https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw
The “pause” coincides nicely with the solar powered globalclimate model.
Drat: hit the send before my eye saw the typo.
global climate
Perhaps Kosaka’s and Xie’s new model failed to take into account the US’s lowered CO2 output. Despite not joining the Kyoto Agreement, we are one of the few countries that managed to reduce CO2 output to 1992 levels.
Once again, another researcher fails to recognize that the so-called pause is actually a stabilization of Earth’s temperature. We are saved from the effects of global warming, but no one is willing to admit it, at least no one who receives funding from organizations or nations that want to prove that global warming is a problem. Instead, as Robert noted, they tell us that nature is wrong, as she fails to follow the predictions of our best global warming model.
These scientists continue to refuse to acknowledge the possibility that we may be entering another mini ice-age, as we know occur on occasion due to historic writings, ice cores, and other methods that these same scientists use to estimate pre-recorded temperatures.
Excellent comment, wayne. “If it disagrees with experiment [nature or measurement], it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is; it doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is; if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
This is the basic concept of science. It is fundamental to the scientific method. To disobey this is to deny science. If it were any other way, then reality [nature] would not matter, and we could make any conclusion that we wish, such as the conclusion that “the raw data underestimate the greenhouse warming.”
In the meantime, all those who favor global warming work overtime to make the theory vague. Less snow means global warming, but so does more snow. Warmer temperatures mean global warming, but so do cooler temperatures. If reality diverges from the models, that means global warming. And cetera. Thus, as Feynman said, it cannot be proved wrong. Therefore it is a bad theory. Or in Feynman’s words, “you can’t claim to know anything about it.”
But Kosaka and Xie claim to know more about it than nature does, when they say, “the raw data underestimate the greenhouse warming,” and they are not embarrassed as scientists to say so.
They were able to predict the past, mostly (and create a simulation with enough variable “knobs”to correspond)…genius!
Predicting the future seems to be the sticking point..go figure.
Thanks for the latest version of the religion. Keep up the good work Bob!
Today’s news release from NASA / JPL:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6576&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NASAJPL&utm_content=daily20160721-2
They openly admit to changing the data to fit the theory. Claims that this comparison is more ‘fair’. Fair to whom? Doesn’t even mention the possibility that the data are the baseline and the theory (models) may be flawed. Astounding. Another vote for “Never Hillary”.