Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong By Michael Bastasch 02/11/2014 Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong. Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies have failed miserably. Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH). I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like most warming since the 1950s is human caused or 97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading, Spencer wrote on his blog. Climate scientists have been baffled by the 17-year pause in global warming. At least eight explanations have been offered to explain the lapse in warming, including declining solar activity and natural climate cycles. Some scientists have even argued that increased coal use in China has caused the planet to cool slightly. But there does not seem to be any solid agreement on what caused global surface temperatures to stop rising. The latest explanation from climate scientists is that Pacific trade winds have caused the planet to stop warming. Stronger winds in the last two decades may have forced warmer water deeper while bringing cooler water to the surface. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.10.2 degree Celsius, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001, (Excerpt) Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/ What no one in the Global Warming advocate area have taken into consideration in the Sun's activity. It fluctuates in cycles and that is exactly what has caused the brief warming and cooling periods.
Eeeew a blogger with no expertise denys climate change, nothing to see here... This may come as surprise to you that there are actually people smarter than you...scientists who study solar activity levels have disassociated solar output with this particular warming event long ago...
Maybe you should be notifying those professors in East Anglia and the people they conspired with. You elitists believe that you know it all and think you know better than Mother Nature. Of course there is more that makes up our climate. However, the Sun's action and the motion of Earth are the major makers of our climate. Oops, I forgot to include the Moon and it's tidal action.
If Spencer had something to say that was true, he could get it past peer-review. The fact that he chooses to preach to denial choir instead of people with expertise says all you need to know. Here are the actual trends for the period 1979-2013 for the 49 models in CMIP5 RCP6.0, along with the 95% error bounds, compared with two global surface temperature datasets: Cowtan & Way 2013 (updated), and NASA-GISS. Data is lower than models, but the difference is not statistically significant. Nothing to see here.
wow...the sun, motion of the earth, the moon that's brilliant no one thought of any of those before, I'll notify the nobel prize people of these revelations....I see a nobel prize for science in your future...
Curious... what do those 49 models look like for 1999-2013? Did all 49 of those models really start in 1979? Because if they started later and include back-data, then of course those ones are going to fit better for the entire range! It's more the second half of that stretch that they've started to lose it...
Roy Spencer, a member or the board of the Marshall Institute which receives most of its funding from Exxon-Mobile? Yeah, that single scientist, in counter to thousands of others, is FULLY credible.
LOL A little 3 point chart and we are all supposed to bow down and claim the warming parasites were correct all along? FAIL
Was that supposed to be sarcasm? Or do you really not know the background of NASA award winning climate scientist Roy Spencer (who has always been funded by NASA, NOAA & DOE, and never by any energy company)?
When I took statistics, 5% variation of the threshold for statistical significance and those certainly look like 5% differences to me......but tell me how do these models account for feedback loops in their design since so little is really known about them and they are kind of a necessary component to a reliable model?
And if they didn't, you're just blowing smoke. The CMIP5 model suite starts in 1850 (usually -- a few start in 1860). But the only "back data" included is emissions, not temperatures.
Between climategate and the IPCC failure, and then you can also consider Obama's health care claims a part of this, western liberals are in the unenviable position of having to defend the credibility of known liars. I'm not saying that AGW doesn't exist, maybe it does, but it takes a lifetime to build a reputation and 10 seconds to ruin it, lying ends your credibility, any liberals who can't accept this are blinded by their own hubris.
anyone who confuses their own political agenda with science obviously has no knowledge of science....talk about hubris! conspiracy theories , climate change and Healthcare! Really?...what other insipidly stupid connections will denier world come up with next...
As has already posted here Spencer fronts a number of institutions/groups funded by exxonmobile or the koch bros....all these positions have cash incentives of some sort, he's a shill...
This is too easy ! ICECAP is a led by Joseph D'Aleo who is also listed as personnel in Science and Public Policy Institute , now we have to make the connections ! Who are those ALEC guys? THERE YOU GO It took me exactly 12' and 20'' to find info about corporate shuns , next time please make it more difficult.
not a single climate model has ever underwent validation and verification. My opinion is no one in the real world should ever put any faith in any model that has not been V&V'ed here is some discussion on the matter both pro and con V & V http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/01/climate-model-verification-and-validation/ for a short and simple explanation of what V & V is here http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc98papers/016.PDF \the bottom line is this. Until climate scientists can list and quantify all of the factors involved in past climate changes such as the medieval warm period and the maunder minimum how in the world can they predict future changes
Ummmmm no it does not. Solar through put is well understood and fluctuates on an extremely small scale over a 22 year period. And 99% of cosmological models and theories have also failed
Back to 1850? When were the models actually created? I don't care how well they fit past data; we don't know if it's subject to overfitting or not until we see how well the same model predicts the future.
