Retrodicting climate

Warmist climate models do a fine job of retrodicting the climate, yet a woefully bad job at predicting the climate.

Their prediction tends to be doom in the next few years, while their modeling of the past is perfectly spot on.  Thus their predictions grow old fast.You have probably heard that sulphate emissions from China temporarily saved the world from the dire and horrid effects of global warming, explaining away the politically inconvenient failure of the world to warm over the past thirteen years.  “Sulfur stalls temperature rise

But that China’s coal use was growing rapidly was known in 2007, when the IPCC models predicted horrid climate doom for 2011.  China’s coal use has been growing at about the same speed as now from about 2000 onwards.

So to now announce that sulphates explain away the lack of warming is a retcon.

Today’s temperatures are well below the temperatures that the models predicted, well below the range that the models deemed possible, far below the uncertainty that the models admitted to.



9 Responses to “Retrodicting climate”

  1. Jesus, somebody call ma, really love this blog :-)! But hey bud, I got some bad news, you’re really missing out of a lot of visitors. I’m a blogger myself and I spend a lot of time making and reading them, ones like Retrodicting climate Jim’s Blog. I recently got a new tool and it’s done *wonders* to my entire business, this crazy thing is SO much more powerful and better. It’s only been a week but my revenue has gone up to $258.11 $$CASH$$, all in one day! So want me to do you a favor? Ok, here’s my big secret, where I learned all my tricks: –>> <– Just giving your site a look I can tell you'll probably pull in a couple hundred bucks a month if you just spend a few minutes tweaking some stuff. Damn, I feel like I just made someone's day today. But keep it a secret! I don't want too many people using it. Traci Phillips

  2. observor says:

    Good point, i’d been wondering that too, where’s the data?

    As i recollect, Mars’ temperature patterns were mirroring the Earth’s.

    Necessary caveat: not to discount concern for the impact of Human flourishing on our surroundings.

    • jim says:

      After 2007, new data on the temperatures of other planets has mysteriously become unavailable. The most relevant indicator is the size of the martian icecaps.

      Any variation of climate on other planets in any direction is a counter argument to the claim that the warming from 1978 to 1998 must be caused by humans, because nothing else can possibly cause it.

  3. Occupant says:

    About five years ago there were reports about warming on Mars. These reports were discounted on the basis that the evidence was scanty and might be have been due to natural variation during the comparatively longer Martian year. Have you heard anything more about this since then? Google Scholar doesn’t seem to turn up much.

  4. Bill says:

    It’s not really true that climate models backcast well. The 1945-75 temperature decline is explained away by the same kind of ad hoc inclusion of sulphate aerosols. Ad hoc in the sense that the effects of and the amounts of aerosols are diddled to “get” the decline.

    As Dr Charlton alludes to, the whole AGW phenomenon is kind of boring. It is so blazingly obvious that the project is unscientific that it is hard to have an interesting conversation about it. When I describe how the hockey stick graph was generated to statistically sophisticated people (pointing out, if necessary, the severe problems), they just don’t believe me. They think I am lying or crazy or biased.

    • jim says:

      It’s not really true that climate models backcast well.

      That was sarcasm: Obviously if the model retrodicts but fails to predict, they are fudging it to fit.

  5. Free Baby Products Cool, there is certainly actually some great points on this article some of my buddies may possibly uncover this pertinent, will mail them a hyperlink, a lot of many thanks.

  6. bgc says:

    Agreed. But ‘retrodicted’ models are simply statistical summaries, and considered as causal hypotehses mean precisely *nothing* until they have successfuly predicted the future (or independent data sets) on several ocassions and with reasonable precision.

    This *ought* to be obvious to any real scientist – the fact that it is *not* obvious to modern ‘scientists’ shows how very, very few real scientists there are left.

Leave a Reply for Occupant