Climate models falling outside acceptable scientific boundaries

A recent analysis of climate models shows they are falling
outside acceptable scientific limits.

Last month former vice president Al Gore made a well publicized appearance before a Senate committee warning of the dangers of global warming.  Lesser known is the appearance of a climatologist before a House subcommittee two weeks later that called into question the models on which anthropogenic [manmade] global warming advocates use to base their assertions on. 

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels is a research professor of environmental services at the University of Virginia and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.  He is a climatologist with impeccable credentials.  Dr. Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology and holds a Ph.D. in ecological climatology.  In the past he has served as president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society (AMS).  He also is an active participant in the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

We include his resume as it is significant because it shows that this is someone with a deep background in climatology and a wealth of experience.  When someone of this caliber discusses climate change and anthropogenic global warming we can and should take notice. 

In testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Dr. Michaels testified on the little known fact that the scientific models used to predict global warming are starting to fall outside acceptable scientific limits.  They have been unable to accurately predict temperature increases and when used to model historical increases, they fail as well. 

The primary drivers of the impact models are therefore the models for climate change itself. I must report that our models are in the process of failing.
- Dr. Patrick J. Michaels

This is significant because if the models on which nations are basing policy decisions on are incorrect, a great deal of money and effort is wasted.  Further, any further analysis that is based on those models such as trying to gauge the impact of temperature increases is thus invalidated as well.  It therefore points to the fact that while some would say that the ‘science is settled’, it is anything but.

The IPCC uses 21 different models for its calculations and projections of climate change and global warming.  In analyzing the results of the models projections, it becomes readily apparent that these models are greatly overstating the amount of temperature increases actually seen. 

The actual observed temperatures fall outside the
boundaries of climate model confidence for the period from
2001-2020.  See our slideshow below for a larger image.

Generally a hypotheses stands up to scrutiny if it falls within a 95% range of confidence.  When it falls outside that boundary, it is not viewed as being valid. 

The image at the right depicts the problem with the models as it stands.  On the hojrizontal axis is a 20 year period between 2000 and 2020.  As you can see, the actual temperature anomalies fall well outside the 95% boundaries the climate models predict.  Please see our slideshow for a larger and easier to read version of the graph.

If the hypothesis is not consistent with observations, it must be rejected. That does not mean that human-induced climate change may or may not be real, but it does mean that (in this case) the magnitude of prospective change has—with high probability—been overestimated.
- Dr. Patrick J. Michaels

Most telling though is when you test the models against historical data – temperatures which we already have measured.  We then can see if the models when run against that data would have accurately predicted the temperature. 

In a telling statement on the accuracy of the IPCC's climate
models, they were unable to accurately predict temperature
increases on historical data from 1989 - 2008.  See our
slideshow for a larger image.

At the right you see the models’ performance against historical data from 1989 to 2008.  While you do see a warming trend, the models consistently overestimate the increases and are inaccurate.  If you factor in the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 which caused an understandable increase in observed temperatures but of course unforeseen by the models, the models fall even further out of relevance. 

This analysis is highly relevant to the debate on global warming.  When we consider that there has been no net increase in global temperatures since 1998 and that the models on which we are basing decisions on are invalid, it is apparent that the science is anything but settled.  As Dr. Michaels said:

“The science is settled” inasmuch as surface temperatures have increased from the late 1970s. That this is shown in the surface record has not been in dispute, so claiming some finality for such a truism is hardly noteworthy. What is true, however, is that the rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the midrange suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled. In fact, judging from these results, it’s time for climate scientists to get back to work and generate models which will be able to estimate the recent past and present within their normal confidence ranges.
- Dr. Patrick J. Michaels