CNN Senior Legal Analyst Tears Into Judge Over This Aspect of the Trump...
Chris Cuomo Brought Up Joe Rogan and Ivermectin. It Didn't End Well.
Democrats Deserve Everything Bad That Comes Their Way…And More
Democrats’ Bogus Lawfare Takedowns Rooted In Fear and Loathing
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 220: What the Bible Says About Love
If Ignorance is Bliss, with the Trump Verdict, Liberals Are Euphoric
Democrat Urges Gov. Hochul to Pardon Trump for the Sake of 'Our Country'
Bernie Moreno Pressures Dem Sherrod Brown to Rescind Biden Endorsement After Trump Verdict
DeSantis: Trump Hasn't Lost Voting Rights In Florida
Here's Where Texas Authorities Found 27 Illegal Aliens
Why It's Even More Egregious That Biden Is Still Bragging About Defying SCOTUS...
Pollster Warns a Harsh Sentence for Trump Would Backfire on Dems
Another University Held Segregated Graduation Celebrations
Wait Until You Hear Bill Maher's Crazy Theory About Trump and the 2024...
Biden Struggles to Put On Football Helmet As Entire KC Chiefs’ Team...
OPINION

When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.

Advertisement

The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.

C:\Users\PJM\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\IE\I8V0HBPV\MT_GL_102_Models_2.png

The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.

The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments.

If you look at data through 1995 the forecast appears to be doing quite well. That’s because the computer models appear to have, at least in essence, captured two periods of slight cooling.

Advertisement

The key word is “appear.” The computer models are tuned to account for big volcanoes that are known to induce temporary cooling in the lower atmosphere. These would be the 1982 eruption of El Chichon in Mexico, and 1992’s spectacular Mt. Pinatubo, the biggest natural explosion on earth since Alaska’s Katmai in 1912.

Since Pinatubo, the earth has been pretty quiescent, so that warming from increasing carbon dioxide should proceed unimpeded. Obviously, the spread between forecast and observed temperatures grows pretty much every year, and is now a yawning chasm.

It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos