Virtual correctness

By |2019-02-06T08:52:34+00:00February 6th, 2019|Climate|0 Comments

How many people know that the threat of global warming exists only in computer simulations?

If the simulations are correct, the future will be significantly warmer.  If they are not, then not so much.

Not many know that the computer models consistently project a warmer world than measured observations show.

Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris discuss computer modeling at CFACT.org:

Although governments have funded more than one hundred efforts to model the climate for the better part of three decades, with the exception of one Russian model which was fully “tuned” to and accidentally matched observational data, not one accurately “predicted” (hindcasted) the known past. Their average prediction is now a full 1 degree F above what satellites and weather balloons actually measured.

In his February 2, 2016 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology, University of Alabama-Huntsville climatologist Dr. John Christy compared the results of atmospheric temperatures as depicted by the average of 102 climate models with observations from satellites and balloon measurements. He concluded: “These models failed at the simple test of telling us ‘what’ has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to ‘what’ may happen in the future and ‘why.’ As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works.”

Take a look at the graph below.  The area in yellow is what the climate models predicted.  The black line represents the actual satellite temperature data.  The models run way too warm.  That is after Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), the folks in charge of the satellites, reluctantly “adjusted” their data in 2017 to warm up recent years.  The models still aren’t close!

Virtual correctness
RSS explains:

For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output.  After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.  

What do global warming campaigners tell the media?

They take the most extremely warm models, those most bitterly divorced from reality, and proclaim, “look what may happen!”

That it has never happened troubles them not at all.

Like-minded members of Team Warming then come along, feed the most extreme projections into their computers and create new models.  They take the most unrealistically frightening results and proclaim, “look how terrifying our projections are for ice, sea level, famine, poverty, war, pestilence, polar bears,” you name it — they’ll exaggerate anything!

Aren’t we entitled to a reality check before we turn over control of our economy to the Left to redistribute our wealth?