Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Scientist Explains Why It's Not Warming Like The Computers Predict -->It's A Fluke

Well they have finally done it.  For years the forces behind the climate change hypothesis have been trying to explain why all their computer models say its supposed to be getting warmer when the real climate hasn't changed in over 18 years.  Their's a fluke.  Their models are perfect..and the pause is just chance occurance. No really that's what they are  saying.

An article called "Are climate models really reliable?" on the Deutsche Welle (DW) website claims, "For years, meteorologists have been observing a discrepancy between climate models and global warming in the real world. But an international team of researchers claims this is just a fluke."
There was a specific problem that puzzled Marotzke [Jochem Marotzke, director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg] and his British colleague Piers M. Forster.

"We knew that the surface temperature of the earth has been stagnant for 15 years, whereas the models show progressive warming," said Marotzke, referring to the problem.

Were the current climate models therefore wrong? Was there a systematic error in the models? Is global warming just a nightmare? Jochem Marotzke didn't start this research to prove or disprove anything.

"We just wanted to grasp where this discrepancy between models and observations is coming from," explained the meteorologist, when asked about the motivation for his most recent study.

Just a fluke?

The research team has just published his results in the journal Nature. With the help of a multi-step calculation, Marotzke and Forster ruled out systematic errors in the models. Instead, the researchers now blamed serendipity for the current lull in global warming. On the basis of their calculations, they say there is no reason to doubt current forecasts detailing strong global warming.

For laymen this may sound overly simplistic. Are the scientists just blaming chance because they can't find another explanation? Marotzke has no problem with his latest findings.

"As meteorologists, we know that chance and chaos dominate the weather. You have to face the fact that chance plays a big role here."

"It's important that you can clearly distinguish between what happens randomly and what can be explained - which also improves our models," he added.

Marotzke is certain that climate models do not overestimate man-made climate change. In his opinion, this means that global warming will have reached a grave magnitude by the end of this century, if massive climate policy measures are not taken.

In this respect, Marotzke is quite happy after all that his research findings are noted and find their way into public debate.
I hope Mr Marotzke doesn't get caught committing a crime, "Gee Officer, I didn't really kill that guy, it was a fluke."
Here's the truth. Instead of admitting the model is wrong and the possibility that the climate change hypothesis has multiple holes in his logic, Mr. Marotzke says it was a fluke to cover up his errors. I can't wait till he investigates how one sock disappears when I dry my laundry.


Jeff Dunetz said...

Why can't Climate Scientists admit their models are wrong?

Jeff Dunetz said...

So, the models are not wrong, the weather is?

Jeff Dunetz said...

Whatever fluke caused 18+ years of zero trend in temperatures could be the same thing in reverse that caused the 18+ years of warming in the '80s and '90s. Whatever explains the pause can explain the cause.

Jeff Dunetz said...

The models are so far off as to be a complete embarrassment.

You would have better luck predicting the State Lottery numbers.

Jeff Dunetz said...

;> I have a stock picking system. It hasn't worked too well so far. But that is a fluke. The stocks prices have been wrong - my system is correct.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Or none of it.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Even the term "pause" is deceptive. It's not a pause unless and until warming resumes. For now, it's an outright "stoppage."

Jeff Dunetz said...

Climate sensitivity?

In climate science, a forcing is defined as something which, if applied for a finite period of time will result in a change in the energy content of the planet.
Energy change divided by the effective thermal capacitance equals (with
consistent units) the change in average global temperature (AGT). Although any consistent set of units could be used, forcing (per unit area) could be in
Joules/sec and energy change in Joules.

If forcing is constant, the energy change is simply the forcing times the duration of the forcing. If the forcing varies with time then the energy change is the time-integral of the forcing. If some average forcing results in an average temperature, the temperature will fluctuate in response to the time-integral of the forcing ‘anomaly’ (the difference between the forcing of each year and the average forcing for many years).

Pick any two points separated in time that have the same average global temperature (AGT) anomaly. The cumulative forcing is the time-integral of the forcing (or the time integral of the forcing anomaly) times a scale factor. Because the AGT at the beginning and end of the time period are the same and the time-integral of CO2 level is not zero, the scale factor must be zero. As a consequence, the effect of the forcing is zero.

The two points could be during the Holocene thousands of years apart which would avoid significant influence from ocean oscillations. If the forcing in question is atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the effect of CO2 below about 285 ppmv is demonstrated to be zero. If the time period spans several interglacials, this is increased to about 300 ppmv. If the time period spans the Phanerozoic this is increased to several times the present 400 ppmv.

Climate sensitivity, (the increase in AGT due to doubling of CO2) is
therefore not significantly different from zero.

The two natural factors that do explain average global temperature since before 1900 (including the flat since before 2001) with 95% correlation are disclosed at

Jeff Dunetz said...

Because it was never about science it's about the agenda.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Marotzke hasn't yet heard that old cliche? "If your theory (hypothesis in this case) doesn't agree with the data, you need a new one"

Jeff Dunetz said...

Actually, there's two good things about this.
1. Some of the rabid believers are now admitting there has been no additional warming for almost 2 decades.
2. Now some of the rabid believers are admitting that any climate model is going to be worthless because it cannot handle any of the chaotic components.