Validation tests published two years after the original bet compared no - change model forecasts with IPCC
dangerous warming forecasts for horizons from one to 100 years, and found that no - change forecasts were considerably more accurate; especially over longer horizons.
Not exact matches
Are
forecasts of
dangerous man - made global
warming valid?
Nic Is it not true that the harsh reality is that the output of the climate models which the IPCC rely's on on their
dangerous global
warming forecasts have no necessary connection to reality because of their structural inadequacies.
The 1,018 - page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing «
dangerous» global
warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate
forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent «unprecedented» climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years.
The conclusion of the audit is that there is no scientific
forecast supporting the widespread belief in
dangerous human - caused «global
warming.»
But of course it is just these feedbacks that yield the
forecasts of
dangerous warming.
The AR5 also concludes that we're on track for
dangerous levels of
warming, however Joe Romm at ClimateProgress notes that in some areas the assessment report gets the
forecasts wrong: