Models and the Comparison with Observed

The figure at right shows the comparison for the past 20 years the modeled versus the measured.   The 2 observed curves are from reliable and not capriciously adjusted temperature measured datasets. 


The average of these 73 models is shown as the dark line.   It clearly shows the divergence of the measured from the modeled.  This is as many skeptics pretty damming for the models. 


RCP cases are detailed at this page.  The cases often quoted in the press are not relevant to any scientific discussion, but rather fuel the political discussion. 



The lack of a hot spot is a underplayed deficiency in the GCM results.   Many attempts have been made to find this hot spot but so far there is none, although the GCM models insist that it should be there.   See how the HotSpot also actually violates the laws of thermodynamics.  


Richard Lindzen and others on the GCM models and what we can expect:



From Heritage:

Climate Models Versus Reality. With observed temperatures rising much more slowly than anticipated, the Administration’s claim that urgent action is required to head off dire consequences of global warming is based on the predictions of climate models—elaborate mathematical representations of various causes and effects related to global temperature. Regrettably, even the best model can hope to be no more than a rough approximation of the real world. The more complex the system, the more likely a model will miss important details. Climate is among the most complex phenomena ever attempted to be modeled, and a comparison of actual temperatures to predictions made by climate models shows how imprecise and imperfect the current models are.


None of the major data sets (including the adjusted NOAA/NASA data set) shows the accelerating warming projected by the IPCC models.[35] Award-winning NASA scientists Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer have shown that the IPCC models project warming that is twice as much as has been observed in both satellite and surface data sets.[36]


The chart above compares actual temperatures from the earth’s bulk atmosphere as measured by satellites and weather balloons, to average theoretical temperatures from 102 model runs.[37] The results are striking—the models fail to do a reasonable job at predicting the past 30 years of temperatures, yet alarmists attempt to use them to forecast temperatures centuries from now.


Many errors could account for the failure of the models to predict actual temperatures accurately. One that is widely suspect—equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—lies at the heart of the process. ECS is an attempt to quantify the earth’s temperature response to CO2 emissions, answering the question: How does the earth’s temperature change from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere? Recent peer-reviewed literature estimates that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is about two degrees Celsius, much lower than the IPCC’s assumed ECS of 3.0 degrees.[38]   on page 22 out of 50


Computer models do not consider solar dimming and brightening

Computer models do not accurately model the role of clouds

Computer models do not simulate a possible negative feedback from water vapor

Computer models do not explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate


Beyond this, the GH models do not explain many other features of Earth’s observed climate. For instance,

•             the history of polar temperatures,

•             the cooling trend of the Antarctic,

•             the seesaw effect of Northern Hemisphere/Southern Hemisphere linked to ocean circulation,

•             and features such the observed Madden-Julian Oscillation in the tropics,

•             the North Atlantic Oscillation,

•             the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation [Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994],

•             the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua 1997], and El Niño occurrences.


In general, climate models do rather poorly in predicting precipitation, particularly on a regional level (see, for example, Figure 16). Nor have they been successful in predicting such major climate phenomena as ENSO or the Indian Monsoon.


Computer models cannot produce reliable predictions of regional climate change


Section for a video or follow-on comment

We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is.   As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.


So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities.  Why?


Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?


Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?


When do deficits and governments become too large?


Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?


Add Comments


Powered by Disqus