For years, Sutherland Institute has encouraged policymakers to maintain a healthy skepticism – a scientific skepticism, even – of theoretical climate projections based on man-made climate models. This skepticism is warranted based on the fact that actual, observed data (especially temperature data) run contrary to predictions of the theoretical models.
The theory vs. reality contradiction, it seems, continues to favor reality over theory.
As climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer recently noted in this blog post (see chart), actual observed temperatures (based on running 5-year averages to adjust for normal, annual temperature fluctuations) do not sync with the projected rise in temperatures from 73 “credible” climate models. Theoretically, these models would show “evidence” that the earth is heading for a climate catastrophe caused by man-made global warming, without dramatic changes in public policy and societal behavior. A few days previous to this post, Dr. Spencer had blogged about the following chart produced by climate scientist Dr. John Christy, which compared long-term linear trends (as opposed to short-term averages) of actual observed temperatures versus trends predicted by the same climate models. As shown, the actual trend falls well below the lower bound of the climate trends predicted by the climate models. If the observed long-term trend is compared to only the U.S.-produced climate model trends, the disparity grows even worse.
The implication is boldly stated by Dr. Spencer: “[I]n what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models?”
The dire predictions put forward in the name of climate science, it seems, still deserve a healthy dose of (scientific) skepticism from both policymakers and the public.