If global warming is a hoax and computer models are just guesses, why are the models so accurate?

Question

Computer climate models used by the IPCC have been run since 1990. From 1990-Present, the planet's climate could have done anything. It could have cooled, warmed, not changed, etc. After all, solar irradiance has not changed on average over that period.

So why is it that the global temperature has fallen right in the middle of the IPCC model projections over that period?

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rahmstorf2.jpg

The solid blue and red lines are the trends from GISS and HadCRU data, the dashed lines are the IPCC projections included in their report. Gray provides the margin of error. These models have not been "tuned" or changed using data subsequent to 1990. They were simply correct.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/recent-climate-observations-compared-to-ipcc-projections/

So why were the models so accurate? Are the scientists just freakishly lucky, or perhaps do you think they know what they're doing and humans are causing global warming?

Answer 1

I find that an odd statement since we have had no statistically significant temperature increases since 1997.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

As the data indicates, over the past two decades, temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes.  This completely contradicts conventional global warming models.  As Dr. Lindzen explained in his follow up email:

“I used this data to show that the trend at 300 hPa was not about 2.5 x the surface trend which is what greenhouse warming [models] requires.” Apparently climate models that predict global warming ala increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 assume increasing temperature trends in the troposphere, where CO2 concentrates, and the reality is the troposphere is not getting hotter, it is getting cooler.

See graph here:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/LINDZENT...

I also find it odd for a person who criticizes us for using blogs as a reference that you would use a blog for proof.  You can please be a little more consistant?

Answer 2

Because data is easily manipulated and every time their models are incorrect, they adjust it.  It's a simple argument of correlation.  You claim that one of the smallest elements in the atmosphere can cause a great change in temperature when increased.  You can use the same correlation with population increase and increase in temperature.  

What about this one?  

The upper troposphere has cooled over the past few decades but the land temperature has increased.  Cement and asphalt will absorb heat and keep it around it's surface.  With the increase in roads (which haven't been around for too long) the land temperature has increased because of the abundance of roads.  Since they keep the temperature on the surface, they have no impact on the atmosphere.  That is a correlation that is as valid (most likely more) as the CO2 argument.

It is easy to argue on either side of correlation.  And it is easy to fool those who do not understand statistics.  The simple fact is that you alarmists will post from the same opinionated sites and try to disprove sites that skeptics post.  Realclimate.org is run by geoscientists and climate scientists by training, and according to you and Bob, geoscientists cannot discuss climatology because they are not qualified.  Wikipedia, do I even need to discuss this? (look on realclimate.org for the "Wiki-project").  The one site you posted about solar irradiance actually show that solar output changes climate, I noticed you haven't posted that one in a while.  So I guess you are left with just your previous posts on this board to link everyone to.  Global warming is a political argument, not scientific.

This is for your Tamino guy:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2920#more...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2897

The list goes on and on for Tamino and his/her unproven opinions.

Answer 3

What do you have except faith that the climate will continue to progress as you want it to?

There is nothing inconsistent with temperatures getting cooler over the next 5 years.

After all, the computer models missed this winter climate, didn't they?