Not exact matches
I believe the most of the hysteria
about climate change will eventually subside when
reality refuses to conform to
model projections.
As others have noted, the IPCC Team has gone absolutely feral
about Salby's research and the most recent paper by Dr Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama (On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance), for one simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real
climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive
climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial
realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't use).
The anonymous peer - review Dr Gulley appends to her statement identifies only one: Professor Bengtsson's paper is
about the way
reality refuses to agree with the
climate models, and the reviewer says this is a «false» comparison because «no consistency was to be expected in the first place».
With «
climate» science we have the advocates messaging both the data and the
models to get what they believe will happen — e.g. with CO2 sensitivity
about twice
reality etc..
If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only
about 0.1 °C while the hypersensitive
climate models give 0.3 to 0.5 °C, not seen in
reality.
Fair enough, but looking at the cluster of results being so consistent and consistently wrong, they are either making huge mistakes
about what influences the
climate, or huge misallocation of forcing effects, or huge simplifications that prevent the
model output from occasionally reproducing
reality.
I have had the privilege of corresponding with a team of brilliant scientists who are devoted to informing the public
about the
realities behind
climate models.
Not only have its
models been conclusively wrong
about CO2 - caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the
climate models» regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of
reality.
If the «real world run» contains some significant «contamination» that no other run contains (or that only a limited number of runs contain), then until he finds that run we can have no confidence that other
climate model runs tell us anything
about an important aspect of
reality.