Climate Models Fail On Historical Data

Environment: The alarmists want to place the world in servitude to the models that are predicting global warming. But those models can't even reconstruct the past.

A researcher at Sweden's University of Gothenburg analyzed climate models to see how closely their predictions fit with history, in this case, precipitation in China from 1961 to 2000. What Tinghai Ou found should crimp the alarmists' plans to establish regimes that punish and limit man's use of fossil fuels.

"Only a few climate models were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years," says the university's Department of Earth Sciences.

Ou himself said that the "results show that climate models give a poor reflection of the actual changes in extreme precipitation events that took place in China" during the period he examined.

"Only half of the 21 analyzed climate models were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China," he said. "Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change."

Ou's work is important. If the models can't get the past right, how can they be trusted to predict future climate?

Seems more like guesswork than solid science to us.

Further evidence of the climate models' flaws was offered on March 16 by the London Daily Mail, which published a chart that "reveals how (the United Nations') '95% certain' estimates of the earth heating up were a spectacular miscalculation."

The Daily Mail charted the earth's actual temperatures against the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections of both 75% and 95% certainty. The lines track closely until recent years, at which point the line representing the observed temperatures "is about to crash out of" the boundaries of the lowest projections.

In other words, while the forecasts — to a supposed 95% certainty, which covers a lot of variation — show global temperatures climbing rather sharply from 1990 on, real temperatures haven't followed the rise.

That the climate models have defects and are severely limited shouldn't be a surprise. Four years ago NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt acknowledged that the "chaotic component of the climate system ... is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically."

Despite the sobriety of Schmidt and many others, the alarmists keep coming with their predictions of a grim future caused by man's use of fossil fuels. Pay no further attention to them.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-wrong-they-cant-even-reconstruct-history.htm

 

Good job. It's all curve fitting. These guys are delusional.

 

It's all been about chasing government dollars.

 

Exactly

I would add the only way to establish causation is to hold variables equal across identical environments, save one variable. The problem with modeling things like the environment - it can't be replicated in the lab; all the variables that impact weather aren't known, and the dynamics between all the interacting variables (sun intensity, magnetic field, ocean temp, prevailing winds, ozone concentrations etc.) aren't known. So modeling this or that, its complete horseshit. There is no way in hell they can establish ONE THING - CO2 - "causes" global warming. It's pure crap.

 

So in other words the climate models all fail backtesting.

Any trader knows that you should never put a system into product that fails basic backtesting during other time periods.

 

Well stated.

Plus, it is abundantly obvious that nothing we can remotely contemplate doing will alter things enough to make a diffference, even accepting their theory.