Following are some comments on the last 10 years of global non-warming.

Roger Pielke Jr comments:

"For a while now I've been asking climate scientists to tell me what could be observed in the real world that would be inconsistent with forecasts (predictions, projections, etc.) of climate models, such as those that are used by the IPCC. I've long suspected that the answer is "nothing" and the public silence from those in the outspoken climate science community would seem to back this up. Now a paper in Nature today (PDF) suggests that cooling in the world's oceans could, according to Richard Woods who comments on the paper in the same issue, "temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere", and this would not be inconsistent with predictions of longer-term global warming.

"I am sure that this is an excellent paper by world class scientists. But when I look at the broader significance of the paper what I see is that there is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun.

"This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy. I am sure that some model somewhere has foretold how the next 20 years will evolve (and please ask me in 20 years which one!). And if none get it right, it won't mean that any were actually wrong. If there is no future over the next few decades that models rule out, then anything is possible. And of course, no one needed a model to know that.

"Don't get me wrong, models are great tools for probing our understanding and exploring various assumptions about how nature works. But scientists think they know with certainty that carbon dioxide leads to bad outcomes for the planet, so future modeling will only refine that fact. I am focused on the predictive value of the models, which appears to be nil. So models have plenty of scientific value left in them, but tools to use in planning or policy? Forget about it.

Those who might object to my assertion that models are of no practical use beyond political promotion, can start by returning to my original question: What can be observed in the climate over the next few decade that would be inconsistent with climate model projections? If you have no answer for this question then I'll stick with my views."

According to Richard A. Kerr in Science 2 May 2008:

"So if you’re a climate- change activist pointing to year after year of mounting climate crises, you might want to rethink your approach."

Roger Pielke Sr has commented at his blog on a New York Times article entitled, Decade Break In Global Warming:

According to the Nature.com blog website The New York Times wraps up a piece by Andrew Revkin entitled' In a New Climate Model, Short-Term Cooling in a Warmer World' with a useful quote from Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research:

"Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way.’”

This is wrong. Global warming theory does require a more-or-less monotonic increase in warming (in the absence of a major volcanic eruption) according to all multi-decadal global model runs (e.g. see the Figure in this post on Climate Science ; and see Figure 1 in Barnett et al, 2001). This essentially monotonic report is even emphasized in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (see Figure SPM.4)! Climate Science published a proposed test of the multi-decadal global model predictions (see A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement).

Clearly, the models are failing to predict the rate, and even the sign for the most recent years,of global warming.  Source

Average user rating

Display 1 of 1 comments