[Post updated to correct typing errors.]
Well, it did not take long for priests in the Church of Global Warming to speak out against the research results obtained by Dr. Roy Spencer, co-author of the climate study which reveals inaccuracies in climate models.
Live Science.com published its own story pertaining to the aforementioned climate study.
Climatologist Gavin Schmidt is quoted saying, “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.” In other words, move along, citizens; nothing to see here.
Not so fast. Apparently, Dr. Spencer’s critics don’t expect many people to read Dr.Spencer’s study. If one were to read it, one would discover that the study compares hard scientific data to the predictions of climate models. The result is that there is conflict between the hard data and the model predictions.
The study does not deny the possibility of AGW. Instead, the study points out the difficulty of creating climate models that make accurate predictions. In the study’s abstract, it’s authors state the following:
While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
Spencer’s study demonstrates that computer models are falsifiable, meaning that they can be tested for accuracy. Apparently, some people are opposed to such testing, making the acceptance of computer predictions an act of faith.
The Live Science story would have people believe that there is no other scientific study that supports Spencer’s study. Well, there is such a study.
In 2007 (revised in 2009) German scientists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a scientific study which contradicts the “greenhouse effect” theory that proponents of AWG rely on. Here is the conclusion of their study:
A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand [154], continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics.
In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.
Science works when scientists permit computer predictions to fail. When scientists insist that predictions must not fail, religion has taken over.
