Here’s almost 40 years of climate models, starting in 1971–when “Global Cooling” was feared, to the Hansen models in the 1980’s, the first in 1981 and the second in 1988, and the last ones by the IPCC, Assessment Reports (AR) from the 1990’s to about 2010.
Notice that the decadal rate of temperature increase remains almost the SAME for the entire 40 year period! And notice how the early models–mostly in the 1970’s when ‘cooling’ was in vogue, are very close to actuals. It’s only when super-duper “climate change models” were devised in the 90’s and later on that the sizable deviations occur.
So, here’s the ‘lie’: these authors claim that climate change models actually stack up quite well to actual temperatures, when, in fact, this is only true because they’ve used very simple models from the 70’s to average out the much larger errors that the super-duper “climate models” are showing. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!” And this is statistical averaging and a big lie!
But, theres MORE:
Here’s a quote from the Phys.Org press release:
Climate models are based on two main assumptions. One is the physics of the atmosphere and how it reacts to heat-trapping gases. The other is the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air.
A few times, scientists were wrong in their predictions about the growth of carbon pollution, saying there would be more of the gases than there actually were, Hausfather said. If they got the amount of heat-trapping gases wrong, they then got the temperatures wrong.
So Hausfather and colleagues, including NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, looked at how well the models did on just the pure science, taking out the emissions factor. On that count, 14 of the 17 computer models accurately predicted the future.
So, if LEAVE OUT the amount of “Greenhouse Gases,” then models become accurate. So, what’s the point of the models, then? What a mockery of science this represents!!