Running on empty: Study says NONE of 65 climate models predicted the temperature ‘pause’

Lorne Gunter writes for Sun News:

Most importantly, though, might be a German study released last week that claims all 65 climate-model computers used by the IPCC to predict the future impact of CO2 on climate – every last one of them -has failed to foresee this 17-year pause in temperature rise.

Indeed, most of the environmentalists’ vaunted supercomputers have trouble predicting past climate, much less future climate.

And if they cannot reproduce known climate, how can these computers be trusted to predict what’s coming?

Read more…

8 thoughts on “Running on empty: Study says NONE of 65 climate models predicted the temperature ‘pause’”

  1. “The climate is simply doing what scientists expect it to do in response to anthropogenic forcings plus natural forcings plus natural unforced variability.”

    No it isn’t. How can you say something is expected when your predictitions (i.e. models) didn’t foresee it?

    They don’t make projections of stochastic natural variability, and of course you wouldn’t expect them to… so what is the issue here?

    Because THAT is the fundamental basis for the skepticism. Most of us “deniers” acknowledge that there is SOME green house warming and man has certainly added CO2 to the atmosphere. Our point is that no one really knows the significance of man-creating forcing versus naturally forcing. And this warming pause bears that out.

    Global Warming was sold to the world community based on these models. Not just warming, but apocalypse. Trillions of dollars are being spent, businesses are failing through unneeded regulation and taxation, economies are sputtering based on the doom scenarios projected by these models. Bottom line: if you want me to mortgage the farm based on your theory, you better be be accurate. Obviously, the climatologists left something out of the equation.

    It’s kind of like explaining why the rocket blew up on the launch pad because you forgot to factor in the weight of the fuel.

  2. Climate models make projections of temperature trends (and other climate metrics) based on forcing scenarios. They don’t make projections of stochastic natural variability, and of course you wouldn’t expect them to… so what is the issue here? The climate is simply doing what scientists expect it to do in response to anthropogenic forcings plus natural forcings plus natural unforced variability.

  3. “And if they cannot reproduce known climate, how can these computers be trusted to predict what’s coming?” Thinking people know the answer: the models are poor and anything based on the models is in error.
    All public discussion from the warmists has been based on two points: warming will increase with increased human production of CO2 and warming will produce damage. The first point has signally failed and the second point actually has failed also. Yes, we’ve had damaging weather since 1950 or 1980 or whenever you want to peg “global warming” — at about the same rate and save variability as any period for which we have good records.
    Aside from the temperature models, we simply know too little about weather, climate, and the biosphere to say what the optimum average temperature of the earth is. We can’t even define the conditions of an optimal earth, let alone manipulate the weather and climate to achieve it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.