Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!

Forskare har studerat de 22 mest använda klimatmodellers förutsägelser för temperaturen: Dessa modeller är de som IPCC och Al Gore (”The doom and gloom pack) använder för att driva Global Warming hysterin.

Deras forsknings rapport ” A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions” som just publicerats i International Journal of Climatology (Royal Meteorological Society’s), 5 december. (För att läsa rapporten måste man betala).

Ett citat från the abstract:

Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.”

Ett annat citat från en intervju:

”Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no,” said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.”

Alltså dessa modeller som UTGÖR GRUNDEN FÖR Global warming hysterin och de kostnader som följer på deras förslag (triljoner dollars) visar sig ha fel på 100 till 300 % vad det gäller vad modellerna förutsäger och den FAKTISKA temperaturen!

Man har jämfört 30 år tillbaks i tiden.

Och för fel på i storleksordningen 100-300 % så fick  IPCC och Al Gore alltså Nobels fredspris!

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/klimat” rel=”tag”>klimat</a>

Läs vidare artikeln i Science Daily från den 12 december som utförligt redogör för rapporten.

Läs även intervjun med författarna i fox news. 

Abstract finns här:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT

Artiken Science Daily finns här:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

Intervjun i Fox News finns här:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,316566,00.html
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2007) – A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.

”The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,” said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. ”Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? ”It seems that the answer is no.”

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change ”forecasts” from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.

”Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere,” said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center. ”The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.

When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast.”

The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

The atmospheric temperature data were from two versions of data collected by sensors aboard NOAA satellites since late 1979, plus several sets of temperature data gathered twice a day at dozens of points in the tropics by thermometers carried into the atmosphere by helium balloons. The surface data were from three datasets.

After years of rigorous analysis and testing, the high degree of agreement between the various atmospheric data sets gives an equally high level of confidence in the basic accuracy of the climate data.

”The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts,” said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. ”Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution.”

The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

”The question was, what would the models ‘forecast’ for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?” said Christy. ”To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

”As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend,” Christy said. ”Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

”We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results.”

Adapted from materials provided by Wiley-Blackwell.

Fox News, Thursday , December 13, 2007

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate ”models” – elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave – with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere -1 to 6 miles above the Earth’s surface – would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no,” said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.

Douglass and his co-authors S. Fred Singer, a physicist at the University of Virginia, and John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, are noted global-warming skeptics.

However, Christy was a major contributor to the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and is one of the world’s premier authorities on collection and analysis of satellite-derived temperature data, having been commended by both NASA and the American Meteorological Society for his efforts.

We do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere,” said Christy. ”Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface.

The difference between the climate models and the satellite data has been known for several years.

Studies in 2005 found that improper compensation for temperature differences between day and night was the cause of most of the satellite-data discrepancy, a correction that Christy has accepted.

No explanation has been put forth for the weather-balloon discrepancy.

Annonser

Etiketter: , ,

3 svar to “Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!”

  1. Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Se även bl.a. mina inlägg: Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New York,  Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This, The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!,  ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled,  Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!,  Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!,  Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric Temperatures,  Scientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’,  Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming “theories” are correct!,  Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series,  Mera om Klimat modellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!, […]

  2. A Climate of Belief – The Story of Climate models! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC,  Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?,  Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate Forecasts,  Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models,  Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New York,  Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This,  The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!,  IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!,  But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!,  There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.  ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled,  Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!,  Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!,  Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric Temperatures,  Scientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’,  Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming “theories” are correct!,  Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series,  Mera om Klimat modellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%! […]

  3. Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found? « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC,  Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?,  Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate Forecasts,  Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models,  Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New York,  Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This,  The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!,  IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!,  But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!,  There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.  ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled,  Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!,  Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!,  Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric Temperatures,  Scientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’,  Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming “theories” are correct!,  Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series,  Mera om Klimat modellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%! […]

Lämna ett svar till A Climate of Belief – The Story of Climate models! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Avbryt svar

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Google-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: