Exaggerated fears of global warming admitted

By

The dire warnings of global warming of five years ago are now admitted to be exaggerated, by the very people who issued the warning. The Australian reports:

In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C.

The new projections put paid to some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period.

If the maximum feared temperature rise is declining by 1.3 degrees every five years, in 16 years, there will be no temperature rise feared at all. That model is crude, but then again, quite obviously, so are the models employed by the fear—mongers.

The last time I checked, none of the models predicting global warming have been able to predict historical temperature changes when historical data is supplied. Nor can climate science predict weather very accurately.

A year ago, when many hurricanes appeared, global warming was blamed. This year, when fewer hurricanes have appeared, that is held to not contradict the model.

Perhaps the most convincing sign that even the scientific scaremongers are not confident in their own predictions is their unwillingness to allow dissent and seriously argue with well—informed opponents. Instead, they impugn motivations, and tell journalists and the public that a "consensus" exists, which is not true.

hat tip: Drudge

Thomas Lifson   9 03 06

Update: 9 04 06 7:55 AM PDT

Dennis Sevakis sends this link from Colorado Strate University regarding the mismatch between the gobal warming models and historical data:

There is a clear mismatch between the model predictions reported in the 2005 Science article by Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev 2005. 'Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications' , and the observational results in the Geophysical Research Letters paper by John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, and Gregory C. Johnson entitled 'Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean'.   [....]

The mismatch between the data and the model predictions, however, raises serious questions on the ability of the multi—decadal global climate models to accurately predict even the global average variability and long term trend of the radiative imbalance of the climate system.

The dire warnings of global warming of five years ago are now admitted to be exaggerated, by the very people who issued the warning. The Australian reports:

In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C.

The new projections put paid to some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period.

If the maximum feared temperature rise is declining by 1.3 degrees every five years, in 16 years, there will be no temperature rise feared at all. That model is crude, but then again, quite obviously, so are the models employed by the fear—mongers.

The last time I checked, none of the models predicting global warming have been able to predict historical temperature changes when historical data is supplied. Nor can climate science predict weather very accurately.

A year ago, when many hurricanes appeared, global warming was blamed. This year, when fewer hurricanes have appeared, that is held to not contradict the model.

Perhaps the most convincing sign that even the scientific scaremongers are not confident in their own predictions is their unwillingness to allow dissent and seriously argue with well—informed opponents. Instead, they impugn motivations, and tell journalists and the public that a "consensus" exists, which is not true.

hat tip: Drudge

Thomas Lifson   9 03 06

Update: 9 04 06 7:55 AM PDT

Dennis Sevakis sends this link from Colorado Strate University regarding the mismatch between the gobal warming models and historical data:

There is a clear mismatch between the model predictions reported in the 2005 Science article by Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev 2005. 'Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications' , and the observational results in the Geophysical Research Letters paper by John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, and Gregory C. Johnson entitled 'Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean'.   [....]

The mismatch between the data and the model predictions, however, raises serious questions on the ability of the multi—decadal global climate models to accurately predict even the global average variability and long term trend of the radiative imbalance of the climate system.