Friday, March 29, 2013

Climate Change Takes More Body Blows

I know the True Believers will find reasons it isn't so, but at that point they leave the realm of science that so many claim to believe in and go straight into faith:
The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity.  That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now.  A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages.

The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire.  As The Economist shows in its first chart (Figure 1 here), the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there’s something going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle.  Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line.  Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too, as shown in Figure 2 here.

So The Economist story, though hedged with every reservation to Keep Hope Alive, is nonetheless a clear sign that it’s about over for the climate campaign.


allen (in Michigan) said...

the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong

Actually, it's been known for a long time the computerized climate models are wrong. Every time they're run they inevitably generate idiotic results and quite often within a very short time frame.

Whether it's Venus Deux or Snowball Earth, both predictions pop out climate models in as little as a hundred years and since either is self-evident nonsense the programs have to be tweaked to produce results that aren't self-evidently idiotic. The question then arises of how much modeling is going on and how much tweaking. Too much of the latter and it's not computerized climate modeling any more and loses any claim to the ability to generate credible predictions.

That's why you don't often hear about the uselessness of computerized climate models. It doesn't fit the narrative.

Michael said...

Does this mean we can buy incandescent bulbs again?

Science! said...

If only more scientists would turn to The Economist for their peer-reviewed science. But they don't.

Since insurance companies are being required to pay out on claims that arise as a consequence of the very real man-made climate change that continues apace regardless of what you opine, there's suddenly a business interest in the reality of AGW. Let's see what kinds of articles The Economist is running 10 yrs from now.

But by all means, kid yourself with your endless stream of "stick a fork in it" posts. You'll still be announcing the Death of AGW a decade from now, too. And it won't be any truer then than it is now.

Darren said...

Please, continue to ignore "the science". Continue to believe in the Gospel of Global Warming, because to you, it's like a religion. I, of course, relish the cognitive dissonance that must be going on inside you :-)