Zero Hedge: Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences.
Should we trust these computer models of doom? Let’s find out by comparing the actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would be.
Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he was an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report. He told a House Science Committee hearing in March 2017 that the U.N. climate models have failed badly.
Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. The result? In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Overprediction also occurred at all other levels. Christy recently concluded that, on average, the projected heating by the models is three times what has been observed.
This is a critical error. more …
Opinion: It had to be an error, otherwise John Kerry would have been right, and that would have been a first in his agonizingly long career.
Joining Kerry’s message is virtually the same as every Democrat running for president – but why?
There is perhaps no more powerful cause than one that:
- is nearly impossible to track the progress of
- has no timetable for success
- will take 50 years to even make a slight change in temperature if at all
- will necessarily need to be monitored by a global entity
- will redistribute the wealth of the United States to the UN/third world nations