Why the IPCC Models are Wrong

Why the IPCC Models are Wrong

Virtually all of the IPCC’s 102 computer models have predicted there would be a hot spot in the atmosphere in the tropics, between 20 degrees S and 20 degrees N latitudes.

The hot spot is shown in this graph taken from Dr. John Cristy’s congressional testimony.

Altitudes are on the vertical axis, latitudes are on horizontal axis. Tropics are within dotted lines.

It should be a simple matter to determine whether actual temperatures at these latitudes and heights prove or disprove the model’s predictions.

Temperatures can be taken using satellites and balloons. Both can accurately establish actual temperatures at the relevant altitudes in the tropical regions.

If actual temperatures taken by satellites and balloons are hotter than the surrounding areas, it will confirm that the models are depicting how CO2 is affecting the Earth’s temperatures.

However, if the temperatures are lower than predicted by the models, then it’s reasonable to assume the models are wrong.

Temperatures from these latitudes and altitudes have been taken and charted to see how they compare with the above graph. An earlier article, False Claims of Impending Disaster,  included a chart of these temperatures, though no mention was made of the hot spot in that article. See that article for a complete description of the chart.

The chart, repeated here, shows that actual temperature readings, in gray, did not show a hot spot in the tropical regions. (The title on the chart establishes that the chart is of temperatures in the tropical regions for altitudes between 1,000 and 100,000 feet.)

All 102 models included data for greenhouse gasses, and these models made predictions reported by the IPCC that are far removed from actual temperatures. They are shown in red, far to the right of actual temperatures.

The hotspot predicted by the models has been referred to as the fingerprint for global warming. And now we can see there is no fingerprint.

The temperatures being predicted by the models are far higher than actual temperatures. There is no fingerprint.

The IPCC models are wrong.

This is the third article in a series titled: Let Science Do the Talking.

2 Replies to “Why the IPCC Models are Wrong”

  1. IPCC Third Assessment Report
    Chapter 14

    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but individually they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

    In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Other relevant publications from Eric Hoffer are: “The True Believer” and “The Temper of Our Times”

    From “The Temper of Our Times”: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

  2. Thanks for your comment. Basically, I agree with the contention that the models used by the IPCC are not able to predict, or project, future temperatures.
    Eisenhower’s comments are very important and should be given great consideration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *