Climate alarmists love flaunting “extreme” weather predictions to instill fear in the hearts of skeptics, but a new study deals yet another devastating blow to those predictions’ reliability.
Researchers at Stockholm University in Sweden published a study in the journal Nature on April 6, 2016, which found that climate model predictions for rainfall and drought extremes in the 20th Century “differed vastly” from what actually happened in the 20th Century. The climate models “overestimated the increase in wet and dry extremes,” meteorologist Anthony Watts reported on his blog Watts Up With That.
The climate models that predicted inaccurately extreme weather are the same models being used to predict the alleged disastrous impacts of climate change in the future.
The Stockholm study examined rainfall data for the last 1,200 years, and found that “prominent seesaw patterns” of wetness and dryness occurred “under both warm and cold climate regimes.” In other words, historical weather patterns don’t support climate alarmists’ belief that global warming (now called climate change) directly causes extreme weather.
“Much of the change is not only driven by temperature, but some internal, more random variability,” the study’s lead researcher, Fredrik Ljungqvist, told Agence France-Presse (AFP).
“It’s therefore very, very hard also to predict (precipitation extremes) with models,” Ljungqvist continued, “It might be more difficult than often assumed to project into the future.”
Despite the study’s far-reaching implications, the media have so far censored its findings. None of the evening or morning news shows on ABC, NBC, or CBS mentioned the study. No other mainstream media outlets have written on the study either, as of noon on April 7.
Oh oh this guy is about to lose his government grants and be censored by his peers.
Maybe some of the real scientists are going to be honest!
I am much relieved to learn that the drought rumored to be affecting much of the American southwest hasn’t actually happened, and that the progressing desertification that now affects 1.5 billion people globally isn’t actually affecting anybody at all. And to think that all it took to fix things was spinning a few speculative comments that were offered in a single Swedish research paper…
So actual scientific measurements are merely “speculation”, while computer model predictions that were incorrect in outcomes – in comparison with what actually occured in reality – are what we should base our decisions.
And there are no examples at all in history of one person proving the scientific consensus totally wrong…like:
Pastuer disproving the spontaneous generation of germs…
The physician who proved that gastric ulcers were due to helicobacter pylori infection, and not stress…
Vesalius disproving the belief that humans have a 5 lobed liver…
Like Harvey proving the heart pumped the blood through the body, rather than warming it…
Like Gallileo proving the heliocentric solar system against the belief in the geocentric model…
Science – actual data driven observation of reality – is not achieved via political consensus of opinion.
Accepting computer generated predictions that repeatedly fail to correctly describe measured events is not science.
Non scientific people like Greg think that computer models are facts. They fail to understand that computer models are used to develop theories that then must be tested to create facts. Not one computer model has passed the tests of reliability to become facts. Liberals do not need to have facts to make everyone else follow their religion.
Exactly – and totally unaware of the astounding irony of the juxtaposition of the manner with which the left sneers over their perception of the treatment of Gallileo by the Catholic Church and the secular political powers of the time, compared with the AGW cultists blackballing scientific authors who deny the AGW hysteria – and not to forget politicians openly harassing anyone who criticizes the AGW scam.
It is laughable how people who engage in actual science via reviewing data and pointing out inaccurate, faulty and falsified data that negate the foundational premise of AGW are portrayed as “anti-science”, while those who push the meme of ‘just accept what your betters are telling you because you are too stupid to understand what our made-up data says’ continue posing as the “I F@#$ing LUV Science!” crowd.
Certainly makes more interesting that recent article from the geneticist at Stanford claiming that human intelligence is declining – based on a rather obvious Darwinian concept that the increased ease of living/surviving to procreate necessarily dilutes the presence of more powerful/effective genes versus less effective genes, via Bell Curve left-shifting of the statistical mean of genetically based attributes, through increased survival of less effective genetic strains.
Fits right in with the “Idiocracy” plotline…
A momentary digression…
Things are not quite as heliocentric as some people like to think. Things are actually helical, with the Sun as the central point man, dragging the planetary orbital paths along behind as it moves through space at 70,000 kilometers per hour. At any given moment the Sun is at the fore of a distorted cone, which is defined by the orbital paths of the planets. The Solar system is actually a conical vortex, with the Sun at the point.
@Pete: The reply to your last post validates your conclusions. He missed the point again.
Yup. Primary debate tactic of the left, that of distracting from the point under discussion when refutation is untenable. I’m used to it.
Basically, “Media Censor New Study Debunking Climate Models” is a totally bullshit assertion. The media isn’t censoring a damn thing with regard to the study. Rather, those who deny that human activities can affect the global climate are deliberately distorting what the study reveals, most likely counting on the fact that no one who reads their claptrap will question a thing they say. The study does not indicate that computer climate models are useless as predictors of climate change, or even necessarily inaccurate predictors. Charpentier Ljungqvist, the lead researcher who produced the study, clearly stated that would not be an accurate conclusion:
Are you able to read and understand those two paragraphs? Apparently Alatheia Larson can’t, or doesn’t care to. Instead, she’s spinning what the study shows, and then jumping straight into conspiracy theory mode.