For those who worry how well climate models can predict the next hundred years, you should be more worried about how well those 22 models used to predict dire consequences of the presence of man-made sources of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can "predict" the last 30 years. Uh, they can't.
According to the new study by David Douglass, he took the models used by the IPCC, which won the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore, and asked them to predict the temperature trend in the troposphere from 1979 onwards. According to the models, there should be significantly more warming in that part of the atmosphere compared to the surface temperature, and that there should be even more warming in the tropic latitudes. Remember, the models are based on the theory that the carbon based gases are the main forcing for recent warming. Unfortunately, satellite data from the last 30 years shows that the troposphere has been warming at the same rate or less than the surface. That's all 22 models being wrong. An earlier study of 19 of the IPCC models concluded there must be something wrong with the data, but that team used flawed statistics. "Who are you going to believe? Our wonderful little computer programs, or your lying satellites?" I think I'm paraphrasing that...
I'm glad you put this stuff on your blog, Joe. Science proves and disproves and reproves and disproves whatever theories again. Keeping track of that, not losing sight of it, is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for conservation, though.
;)
For the past few years, a lot of the IPCC proponents have shifted their attention to aerosol research, looking for particulates in the troposphere that could account for the cooling. There was a notable cooling effect when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, and the ash forced a global cooling trend for two years. This is why there was a lot of yammering about some atmospheric instruments having been left off of a satellite launch earlier this year, due to budget and weight constraints. There are a lot of reputations on the line for pushing AGW, and as more government money has been spent on climate research, the known holes in the carbon forcing theory for warming are facing wider scrutiny. Good for science, bad for policy makers and advocates.
ReplyDeleteAll I know is it's windy as all hell out there, half an inch of ice coating our satellite dish, and oh yeah, it's friggin' cold. This ain't no disco; it's um, well winter is what it is.
ReplyDeleteHeh. There's an old meteorology joke: Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.
ReplyDeleteI joke that my moods change like the weather in Indiana. Drastically and without notice. That of course, is not true (anymore).
ReplyDeleteGive me hairspray!!