Exhibit C: The IPCC Climate Models Fail…Miserably
- Climate “science” is a “model” based science, its entire credibility is dependent upon the accuracy of its computer models. The very precise climate models are very inaccurate.
- The confidence of the climate science “consensus” increased as the climate models increasingly deviated from observations.
- 100% of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models overestimated the expected increase in global temperatures, 100%. A 100% overestimation rate involving that many models represent a systemic bias, not a random error.
- The climate models assume a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. That relationship does not exist as this graphic demonstrates.
- Real science relies on the scientific method, and reaches a conclusion through falsification (rejecting the null), experimentation, data collection, data analysis and reproduciblity. Climate “science” relies on none of the classical scientific practices, and relies on computer models, peer review and consensus. Albert Einstein isn’t remembered because he agreed with the “consensus,” he is remembered because he shattered the existing consensus.
- The extreme failure of the IPCC climate models to accurately model global temperatures means that the IPCC modelers failed to include significant variables, failed to properly model CO2 or both. Regardless of which is true, the IPCC has failed on an epic scale to make the case that CO2 is the cause of the recent warming.
- If climate “science” was a “settled science,” the climate models would be able to accurately predict the climate and temperature. They don’t even come close.
- In real science if something is understood it can be modeled with great accuracy. Things fall at 9.8 m/sec^2 in a vacuum can be tested over and over and over again and the results will always be the same. If something isn’t understood, it can’t be modeled with any accuracy. If something really isn’t understood, the experts won’t even be able to agree on what is wrong with the models. The vast number of different and unique excuses (52 documented here) to explain why the models have performed so poorly proves just how little the expert climate “scientists” truly know.
- How can any real “science” have a “consensus” on something that they can’t even remotely model, and whose conclusions aren’t supported by empirical evidence/natural observation? Additionally, all these models passed “peer review,” and helped solidify the “consensus.”What good is a “peer review” process if the “consensus” it helps develop doesn’t accurately reflect reality?
- If this “science” is truly “settled” why are there so many different models with widely different results? The only thing that all the models seem to agree upon is that they are all wrong. I imagine that is because the most significant factors used in ALL these models is CO2. To properly cure an illness, one must first properly diagnose it. Prescribing eyeglasses for headaches caused by a brain tumor will only lead to the death of the patient. Climate “scientists” can model CO2 and temperature all they want, the models will never be accurate.
- The climate models ignore significant factors like the Sun, Clouds and Water Vapor.
- Is it even plausible that a trace gas, 400 ppm, that absorbs a very very narrow band of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns, can be the major factor controlling the climate? Can 1 out of every 2,500 molecules really make that much of a difference?