Climate scientists who support human-caused global warming, for example Ben Santer and Michael Mann, authored a peer reviewed paper which acknowledges that their climate models are wrong, although their admission is buried in weasel words and technical jargon:
“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the first line of the abstract of lead author, climate scientist Ben Santer’s recent paper in Nature. In other words, the actual temperature trends were less than their models.
Their models cost taxpayers billions of dollars and they want trillions more dollars.
Michael Mann (of the infamous and now repudiated “hockey stick” warming graphic in Al Gore’s science fiction movie) as well as other alarmists are co-authors on the paper. (Link below.)
“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, MODEL tropospheric warming is substantially larger than OBSERVED,” reads the abstract, adding that “model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.” (Capital letters are mine for emphasis.) In other words, their computer models substantially overestimated the global warming which has been observed in the real world.
For three decades in thousands of peer-reviewed science papers, tens of thousands of scientists have been pointing out the large differences between climate models and real world observations or measurements of climate. But, these works have received very limited coverage by mainstream media and are very rarely taught in schools. And, there has been a nearly two-decade-long “hiatus” or “pause” in global warming which the climate models failed to predict. These climate models fail to replicate known climate conditions. This means their computer models are not validated and should not be used for decisions, much less to justify the expenditure of trillions of dollars.
Since CO2 has been climbing steadily during the same period as this “hiatus” or “pause” in the temperature trend, their hypothesis that human-produced CO2 causes climate change is falsified under the scientific method. The CO2 trend cannot be forcing the temperature trend if the CO2 trend and temperature trend are diverging. Furthermore, there was a well-known period of ‘global cooling’ from the late 1940’s to the late 1970’s while at the same time the CO2 concentration trend was increasing. These direct contradictions of the global warming theory have never been adequately explained by global warming alarmists.
And, by the way, the commonly used words “hiatus” and “pause” presume that global warming will re-start at some point in the future. The evidence does not support that presumption. The climate could cool instead, or it could continue as a flat trend for millions of years, as has happened in the past.
In the scientific method it is not the obligation or responsibility of skeptics or “deniers” to falsify or disprove hypotheses and theories proposed by climate scientists. It is the obligation and responsibility of climate scientists to present evidence and to defend their hypothesis. Alarmist climate scientists have failed to do so despite the expense of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Full paper in pdf HERE: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/SanterEtAlNatureGeosci17.pdf
A review of the paper:
This article is republished here:
Pingback: The climate change fraud is separating you from your property and sovereignty. - Climate- Science.press
Pingback: The climate change fraud is separating you from your property and sovereignty. | budbromley
Pingback: KOMMONSENTSJANE – CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ADMIT THEIR MODELS ARE WRONG – WHY ARE THEY WRONG? | kommonsentsjane
Pingback: Climate scientists admit their models are wrong – The Great Climate Debate
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:
Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.
For your information.
LikeLiked by 1 person