Does this make Excuse #67? There have been so many, and the excuses get thrown around in a willy nilly manner, that it makes it rather difficult to keep track. This comes via Yid with Lid
Are climate models really reliable?
There was a specific problem that puzzled Marotzke [Jochem Marotzke, director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg] and his British colleague Piers M. Forster.
“We knew that the surface temperature of the earth has been stagnant for 15 years, whereas the models show progressive warming,” said Marotzke, referring to the problem.
Were the current climate models therefore wrong? Was there a systematic error in the models? Is global warming just a nightmare? Jochem Marotzke didn’t start this research to prove or disprove anything.
“We just wanted to grasp where this discrepancy between models and observations is coming from,” explained the meteorologist, when asked about the motivation for his most recent study.
Just a fluke?
The research team has just published his results in the journal Nature. With the help of a multi-step calculation, Marotzke and Forster ruled out systematic errors in the models. Instead, the researchers now blamed serendipity for the current lull in global warming. On the basis of their calculations, they say there is no reason to doubt current forecasts detailing strong global warming.
For laymen this may sound overly simplistic. Are the scientists just blaming chance because they can’t find another explanation? Marotzke has no problem with his latest findings.
“As meteorologists, we know that chance and chaos dominate the weather. You have to face the fact that chance plays a big role here.”
“It’s important that you can clearly distinguish between what happens randomly and what can be explained – which also improves our models,” he added.
Notice that the researchers are also essentially claiming that the models are correct, it is the observations of real data that are wrong. Something Dr. Roy Spencer noted almost a year ago.
