Have any models “worked?”
Much of the Anthropogenic Globaloney Warming hype comes from mathematical models that are based all too often on incorrect assumptions. Their track records of accuracy are woefully abysmal. An eminent statistician by the name of George E. P. Box once asserted, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” Have there been any models that have been at least partially successful (i.e., useful) in predicting global temperatures?
Actually, Joanne Nova found one such study from 1979, reported on the blog linked here, that has, within a 5-7 year margin of error been pretty accurate so far and went out a full 70 years. Two key points about this study: first, they used actual data from…drum roll please!…tree ring data going back 1800 years! Secondly, the key assumption of their analysis was that climate changes naturally and cyclically. The major prediction from their model: a warming trend until 2000 and then “very cold.” (Does anyone really need a reminder of the Snopolcalypse of 2011?)
From the January 1, 1979, issue of the St. Petersburg Times:
Got that? Don’t get rid of your parkas yet!
Oh, and remember as we swelter in this summer’s heat…this is North America…it always gets hot in the summer! (The real question is, how hot does it get in the winter when it’s supposed to be cold…that would at least be some indication that something might be going on.)