I touched upon this story briefly during our weekend wrap-up of the news (a new benchmark bit for this website, so keep an eye out for it), and I was surprised as to how bothered I was by it in the fresh light of morning. I mean, how in the name of Journalism isn't the biggest story in the Nation (I'll grant that the international media might be a bit busy with Israel's goings on and the strangeness of the Ukraine).
But the idea that the climate models we have based our environmental policy (and thus our economic fortunes) on for the last decade at least are riddled with not just inconsistent data, but the outright misrepresent the hard data that was recorded in observation.
In case you missed the original posting, allow me to recap...
Big brains Tom Vogelsang and Ross McKitrick took it upon themselves to have a gander at the climate models that our entire world has decided to base their energy and environmental policy on (including the implementations of restrictive taxes, lifestyle limitations, and costly industrial regulations on the public, sold on the cataclysmic urgency of these moves by these same doom claiming models). And what they found left them floored.
It turned out that the models not only predicted far more warming than they should have been predicting, but also may have fingered the wrong culprit for whatever change here happens to be.
First, let's take their claims on the cause for the noted "warming trend"...
We all remember the chart Al Gore showed up in that cockamamie movie of his... The one that showed the spiking ever higher warming destined to BBQ the world... Remember? He had that cherry picked to help us really understand just how never ending that rise would be??? And how this was directly linked to the carbon dioxide our heartless, money crazed society was just puking out onto the world???
Yea, that chart.
As it turns out, it was total bullshit.
Not the warming... That did happen, in the late 1970s, at the hands of a well documented naturally occurring phenomenon called "The Pacific Climate Shift", a massive change in temperatures around the Pacific Rim that reorganized the world's currents. Their data, examined by them thoroughly in their paper, finds that the warming really got going in the later part of '77 and continued until roughly mid-79. After that, the temperatures sort of stabilized... Still fluctuating as they normally had prior to the shift, but existing in this higher temperature range.
Not carbon, or cow farts, or whatever the villain de jour happens to be currently is trying to destroy our planet.
Our planet itself did it as a result of its mere existence.
This is all provable by their data, I might add.
As for how the models got it all wrong is a bit more of a sticky wicket....
As it turns out, when this industrious pair started doing just a base comparison of the raw data and the data provided to the models, a glaring and undeniable inconsistency appeared...
In plain speak, the numbers were fucked.
No easier or more polite way to put it than that...
The numbers that were plugged into the computers to draw up these climate models were not (repeat, WERE NOT) in any accordance with the raw numbers that the researchers had observed.
Here, check out this chart. The angry red lines are the rises in temperatures the model (and thus the mainstream thinking of our society) claims has been and will be happening, while the blue represents the actual rate of change (including the noted lack there of...).
But nowhere near as damning as just the black and white numbers staring at you....
McKitrick closed his paper, spelling it out better than I ever could (mainly because the only things I can speak with authority on is marijuana), leaving very little doubt as to the meaning of his conclusions:
“… Over the 55-years from 1958 to 2012, climate models not only significantly over-predict observed warming in the tropical troposphere, but they represent it in a fundamentally different way than is observed. Models represent the interval as a smooth upward trend with no step-change. The observations, however, assign all the warming to a single step-change in the late 1970s coinciding with a known event (the Pacific Climate Shift), and identify no significant trend before or after. In my opinion the simplest and most likely interpretation of these results is that climate models, on average, fail to replicate whatever process yielded the step-change in the late 1970s and they significantly overstate the overall atmospheric response to rising CO2 levels…”
Like they say, numbers just don't lie.
People, on the other hand, are lying sacks of shit.
- Next >>