Thursday, December 31, 2009
Fulfilling the Prophesies
But recently, they put up this entry, which compares the WTB predictions (based on their wholly inadequate but constantly upgraded computer programs) with the "reality" as they see it. They say they did pretty good, but I couldn't help but notice that they only compared the predictions to HadCRUT3 and GISSTEMP, which are the WTB records which the East Anglia documents show are at best biased towards warming and at worst completely unreliable. As I have pointed out a dozen times, these two are generally much higher than the harder to mess with satellite records from RSS and UAH. So how did the predictions do compared to reliable global temperature records? I'll get to that.
Open thread for various climate science-related discussions. Suggestions for potential future posts are welcome.
But first let's look at how James Hansen's predictions in 1988 did even compared to the suspect and elevated ground based temperature records on which NASA (our space agency) and then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rely.
Not so good. Even the tamest of Hansen's prediction is way above reality. What are the odds of that? Here (just below) is how it looks to the WTB using only the suspect records, better, but still high.
Of course the WTB don't rely on Hansen. For the latest IPCC updated prediction (and I mean by 'updated' that the Warmie modelers take into account the ground based temperature record since their last predictions and then change the computer models to be more congruent with the so called reality so that it seems they are more reliable predictions than they in fact are) the fourth revision, which came out just two years ago, in 2007, the two years of real data (that is, including the satellite records) also is lower than predicted. Even rewriting history, they can't hit the mark, although it is difficult, it seems, for them to realize this.
So comparing the constantly revised computer predictions (which is not by any stretch of the imagination data in support of a theory) to a more reliable record of global temperature reveals how hopelessly shitty the computer models are; and the fact that WTBs compare their revised predictions to records they almost certainly bend upwards and then say, 'Ooh, lookin' good' reveals a sort of willful blindness to the very serious shortcomings of their alarmist theories.
It's like when Michael Palin pushes the cage of the dead Norwegian Blue and says, "See. He moved." Except not quite as funny.