GCCI #10: Extreme Example of Forcing Observation to Fit the Theory

In the last post, I discussed forcing observations to fit the theory.  Generally, this takes the form either of ignoring observations or adding “adjustment” factors to the data.  But here is an even more extreme example from page 25:

simulation

A quick glance at this chart, and what do we see?  A line historically rising surprisingly in parallel with global temperature history, and then increasing in the future.

But let’s look at that chart legend carefully.  The green “historic” data is actually nothing of the sort – it is simulation!  The authors have created their own history.  This entire chart is the output of some computer model programmed to deliver the result that temperature drives heavy precipitation, and so it does.

  • Angus Scott-Fleming

    You wrote: “The green ‘historic’ data is actually nothing of the sort – it is simulation! The authors have created their own history. This entire chart is the output of some computer model programmed to deliver the result that temperature drives heavy precipitation, and so it does.”

    OK, so is it possible to substitute real historic data for the simulation, and if so, what do we see?

  • If true this is a truly terrifying prediction, isn’t it. The amount of precipitation could increase by a massive 3 percent by the end of the century. That would mean that instead of having a very wet day with say 2 inches of rain, we could get as much as 2.1 inches of rain.

    You have a great series of posts here debunking this absurd report.

  • Andrew

    I doubt there are adequate data sets to compare to, Angus. However, there is some interesting stuff here:
    http://disc2.nascom.nasa.gov/Giovanni/tovas/rain.GPCP.shtml