Compare the trends in the two extracts above and it seems the average prediction of climate models, at 0.21°C/decade, is at least four times higher than the temperature trend calculated from data from temperature observations. An attempt to explain the failure of the climate models is also given: “There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).” [SPM, section D.1, page 13] Given the previous quote, it seems reasonable to wonder whether the word “some” would be better expressed as “the vast majority”, but it is at least an acknowledgement as it stands that models exaggerate the influence of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A passage from Chapter 10 provides further information: “RF [Radiative forcing] in the simulations including anthropogenic and natural forcings differs considerably among models (…), and forcing differences explain much of the differences in temperature response between models over the historical period (…).” [chapter 10, section 10.3.1.1.2, page 880] It seems that while models differ considerably in how they mimic natural and man-made forces, the overwhelming majority over-estimate the influence of these anthropogenic forces. Bear in mind that the output of such models forms not just one key plank of the IPCC’s claims but two, as the IPCC says in Chapter 9: “Climate models are the primary tools available for investigating the response of the climate system to various forcings, for making climate predictions on seasonal to decadal time scales and for making projections of future climate over the coming century and beyond.” [chapter 9, section 9.1.1, page 746] https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/08/parsing-ipccs-innumerate-piffle/
Posted on: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 02:57:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015