Can You Feel the Excitement? Kamala Is Back and in the Lead!
The AI Race Needs a Little More ‘I’ in It
Dana Bash Recalibrates Both Sides of ICE Protest, and Sen. Cruz Is Guilty...
A Republican Who Wants to Raise Taxes
Welcome to the Old World Order
The Midterms: It's Not About 'Affordability' -- It's About Trump Hatred
Trump’s First Year Delivered the Most Meaningful Education Reforms in Decades
Pro-Abortion James Talarico's Factless Campaign for the Senate
How America First Policies Can Lead to Even More Growth in 2026
If You Own It, You Should Be Able to Fix It
Minnesota Malfeasance Is a Preview of Biden-Era Fraud and Waste
Why Children Under 13 Should Be Banned From Social Media
A Refreshing Year for LGBT Conservatives
Jury Convicts Alleged Minneapolis Gang Member in Fatal Gas Station Attack
Former TD Bank Worker Helped Launder $26 Million Through Shell Accounts, Prosecutors Say
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.

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement