Alex Sen Gupta has dove into the fact that 95% of the computer models have failed, taking yet another stab from the Cult of Climastrology to protect their models in order to keep pushing their politics. Interestingly, the reviewer is John Cook, he of the utterly failed and debunked 97% consensus paper. This comes in rebuttal to Maurice Newman, AC, Chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, writing in The Australian newspaper, May 8, 2015.
FactCheck: Are 95% of models linking human COâ‚‚ emissions and global warming in error?
…..
There is a saying in science that “all models are wrong, but some models are usefulâ€. In simulating any complex system, any model will fail to reproduce all facets of the system perfectly.
Mathematical models may be imperfect but they are extremely helpful to predict the weather, design aeroplanes and even test new vaccines. They are essential to modern life. A major part of scientific research is not only developing models, but determining how they are best employed.
When asked for a data source to substantiate his 95% claim, Mr Newman referred The Conversation to research by a range of scientists including Professor Judith Curry from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Professor John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Mr Newman said these researchers had identified errors in climate modelling.
True, not all models are perfect. That said, CoC members are asking Government to pass all sorts of laws, rules, regulations, and restrictions based on the models as released by “climate scientists” and their computers. We’re supposed to change out lives, our economies, our businesses, and give up lots and lots of Freedom based on these models.
What Mr Newman described as a “well-kept secret†has actually been the subject of numerous scientific papers
These papers show that the recent discrepancy between projections and recorded temperatures is very likely due to random fluctuations in the climate system. The “problem†is clearly seen in this graph showing that modelled surface temperatures have generally tracked above observed temperatures over recent years.
Two points: first, this shows that the models fail in hindsight. They had the data, plugged it in, and the models still failed.
Second, if random fluctuations in the climate system, ie, natural variation, are causing problems with the models, why can’t those same “random fluctuations” be responsible for most, if not all, of the warming during the Modern Warm Period?
Oh, and a third problem: there were no satellites during the majority of that time period. So, how are they getting that data and labeling them?
The article then jumps into all sorts of mea culpas, moving towards the latest CoC talking point
Rather than relying on surface temperature to keep track of global warming, it is far more reliable to look at total ocean heat content or its twin, ocean sea level (which reflects ocean heat content plus land ice melt).
These metrics are far less sensitive to random fluctuations as they don’t suffer from the complications of heat redistribution. Moreover, over 90% of the additional heat from anthropogenic warming goes into the ocean, with only a small fraction going to raising surface temperatures.
So, hey, ignore all the land and air measurements (should we ignore Michael Mann’s tree rings, too?), just look at ocean temps!!!!!!
Based on these more representative metrics, there is no “pause†in either the observations or in the climate models. Indeed, both indicate increasing rates of change over time.
So, isn’t this 100% saying that the models have been utter failures? Don’t forget, again, that Governments are being told to make policy based on those models. This also goes to the whole “the oceans ate my warming” meme.
However, long-term climate simulations do not and likely never will reproduce the timing of shorter-term random fluctuations, like the recent slowdown in surface temperatures. In the long run, this fluctuation, like many before, will just be noise on a gradually increasing temperature signal.
This is just another in a long line of excuses for the Pause, categorically stating that we’re DOOMED in the future. So, ignore that the models have failed now, because they are like, you know, totally going to be right in the future, you guys!
