Saturday, 21 March 2009

Climate models continue to predict higher temperatures than reality

Why anyone can continue to support the IPCC's models' projections when they have proven themselves to have no predictive ability at all is beyond me.

Then again, dogma trumps data for the Climate Faithful and it's important for them to stick together and not admit any faults. The policy is consistent with the lengths they go to in order to protect their data and methods from external scrutiny, which is problematic given it's public money that's funding the research.

There's a reason why I refer to the science of modelling climate as Climate Astrology. It's equally fair to refer to models in the financial markets sector as astrology.

When the models are created almost exclusively by a method of backfitting, as climate models are, it comes as no surprise that they don't work.

The fact is that they can't work.

After only a short period of time temperatures are not only well under the lowest predictions of the IPCC's models but are now expected to fall further at a time when CO2 continues to rise, driving yet another nail into the coffin of CO2-as-primary-driver-of-temperature theory.



Dr Syun Akasofu from the International Arctic Research Center provides an update:
The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000 against the IPCC’s prediction of continued rapid increase. It is a plain fact and does not require any pretext. Their failure stems from the fact that the IPCC emphasized the greenhouse effect of CO2 by slighting the natural causes of temperature changes.

The changes of the global average temperature during the last century and the first decade of the present century can mostly be explained by two natural causes, a linear increase which began in about 1800 and the multi-decadal oscillation superposed on the linear increase. There is not much need for introducing the CO2 effect in the temperature changes. The linear increase is the recovery (warming) from the Little Ice Age (LIA), which the earth experienced from about 1400 to 1800.

The halting of the temperature rise during the first decade of the present century can naturally be explained by the fact that the linear increase has been overwhelmed by the superposed multi-decadal oscillation which peaked in about 2000.*

This situation is very similar to the multi-decadal temperature decrease from 1940 to 1975 after the rise from 1910 to 1940 (in spite of the fact that CO2 increased rapidly after 1946); it was predicted at that time that a new Big Ice Age was on its way.

The IPCC seems to imply that the halting is a temporary one. However, they cannot give the reason. Several recent trends, including the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the halting of sea level increase, and the cooling of the Arctic Ocean, indicate that the halting is likely to be due to the multi-decadal change.

The high temperatures predicted by the IPCC in 2100 (+2~6°C) are simply an extension of the observed increase from 1975 to 2000, which was caused mainly by the multi-decadal oscillation. The Global Climate Models (GCMs) are programmed to reproduce the observed increase from 1975 to 2000 in terms of the CO2 effect and to extend the reproduced curve to 2100.

It is advised that the IPCC recognize at least the failure of their prediction even during the first decade of the present century; a prediction is supposed to become less accurate for the longer future.
Dr Akasofu is no scientific slouch, either, as his Wikipedia entry shows.

Naturally, the Climate Taliban will play the man rather than the science and accuse him of being funded by Big Oil, driving a gas guzzling V8 or not driving a Prius.

(Nothing Follows)

6 comments:

Kaboom said...

Jack,

What has happened to Fudgie II? I kind of miss him, in the same way I miss serial idiot Stephen Gloor, commonly known as "Ender".

It enables hours of cheap entertainment to be able to smack down these "useful idiots" of the cause.

I think that after a while, they can no longer justify their own efforts on an egotistical basis, such as "they won't listen to me!"

The concept of being "wrong" simply doesn't apply to the climate faithful, after all...

Anonymous said...

"The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000"

If that were true, then a linear fit to 1978-present temperature data would be less steep than a linear fit to 1978-2000.

So let's check the data. Hadcrut? No. Gistemp? No. RSS? No. Now surely the denialist's favourite temperature record, UAH, will help us here. Oh, no, that's a no as well.

How exactly do the trends steepen, if temperatures have stopped rising?

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgieeee!

You are deceitful again.

Why?

Because the trend starting point is in a very cool period and not the long term average, for starters.

Trends since 2000 are negative.

Get over it.

Anonymous said...

No, 1975 was not in a very cool period, and in any case it makes no difference at all. Start at x. The trend x-present is more upward than the trend x-2000. What you are apparently incapable of understanding is that there is no such thing as a "trend since 2000". It's mathematically meaningless to claim that there is.

But anyway, as you want to, let's cherry-pick! 2000 is irrelevant. Temperature changes since 2008 are strongly positive.

Get over it.

Jack Lacton said...

If you can't accept the well established fact about the mid-70s being cool then there's no facts that can turn you from your Climate Fascism.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the usual fuckwitted Lacton response - ignore the facts, say something irrelevant!

Here's what the instrumental temperature up to 1980 looked like:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1980/mean:12.

Can you explain, with reference to this, what your definition of 'cool' is?