An article called “Are climate models really reliable?” on the Deutsche Welle (DW) website claims, “For years, meteorologists have been observing a discrepancy between climate models and global warming in the real world. But an international team of researchers claims this is just a fluke.”
There was a specific problem that puzzled Marotzke [Jochem Marotzke, director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg] and his British colleague Piers M. Forster.
Were the current climate models therefore wrong? Was there a systematic error in the models? Is global warming just a nightmare? Jochem Marotzke didn’t start this research to prove or disprove anything.
“We just wanted to grasp where this discrepancy between models and observations is coming from,” explained the meteorologist, when asked about the motivation for his most recent study.
Just a fluke?
The research team has just published his results in the journal Nature. With the help of a multi-step calculation, Marotzke and Forster ruled out systematic errors in the models. Instead, the researchers now blamed serendipity for the current lull in global warming. On the basis of their calculations, they say there is no reason to doubt current forecasts detailing strong global warming.
For laymen this may sound overly simplistic. Are the scientists just blaming chance because they can’t find another explanation? Marotzke has no problem with his latest findings.
“As meteorologists, we know that chance and chaos dominate the weather. You have to face the fact that chance plays a big role here.”
“It’s important that you can clearly distinguish between what happens randomly and what can be explained – which also improves our models,” he added.
Marotzke is certain that climate models do not overestimate man-made climate change. In his opinion, this means that global warming will have reached a grave magnitude by the end of this century, if massive climate policy measures are not taken.
In this respect, Marotzke is quite happy after all that his research findings are noted and find their way into public debate.
I hope Mr Marotzke doesn’t get caught committing a crime, “Gee Officer, I didn’t really kill that guy, it was a fluke.”
Here’s the truth. Instead of admitting the model is wrong and the possibility that the climate change hypothesis has multiple holes in his logic, Mr. Marotzke says it was a fluke to cover up his errors. I can’t wait till he investigates how one sock disappears when I dry my laundry.