Beginnings Reporting on science and intelligent design

Computer models of global warming proven wrong

Science | Real temperatures have not increased as much as predicted
by Julie Borg
Posted 12/14/17, 03:37 pm

In the midst of gloom-and-doom predictions of rapid climate change, a recent study shows computer models grossly overestimate the rate of global warming. The study, published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, shows real-world climate change over the past 38 years is 0.096 degrees Celsius, about half of what computer models predict.

In 1994, the same researchers analyzed data for the preceding 15 years and found essentially the same rate of global warming that they found in the new study.

The researchers admitted that even though natural variability may account for some of the discrepancy between predictions and actual global warming, their results suggested that computer models significantly over-estimated actual warming.

“It is not scientifically justified to dismiss model error, possibly substantial, as one source of the discrepancy,” they said.

Despite this and other studies that show the computer models’ credibility as shaky at best, government agencies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change still base their predictions, policies, and frightening warnings on them. For example, an editor for the journal Nature recently wrote, “Even if—and it is a huge if—all countries meet their current Paris pledges, the world will probably heat up by substantially more than 2  degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures, with grave consequences for ecosystems and societies.” The editor urged immediate action such as a worldwide carbon-pricing scheme aimed at phasing out the use of coal, even though coal is the least expensive and most plentiful energy source available.

Yes, Virginia, there was a St. Nicholas, maybe

Churches and historians still debate whether St. Nicholas, whose life inspired the tale of a certain plump bearded guy in a red suit flying in a reindeer-pulled sleigh, existed in real life. Over the centuries, various churches acquired bone fragments touted as the saint’s remains. Researchers recently used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the age of one of those fragments and found it dates to the fourth century, the time Nicholas reportedly lived.

According to church tradition, St. Nicholas, the highly esteemed bishop of Myra, a town in Turkey, suffered persecution and imprisonment because of his faith, but when Constantine became emperor, he released him.

Some biographers claim St. Nicholas attended the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council of the Christian church in 325, and slapped Arius, a man who denied the full divinity of Christ, in the face. But historical records of the council don’t mention Nicholas, and little historic evidence of his life exists.

Of course, the research can’t prove the bone fragments belong to St. Nicholas, but neither can they disprove it. —J.B.

University of Delaware University of Delaware Majoid crab

Deck the crabs with lots of pompoms

While humans decked the halls with boughs of holly, researchers at the University of Delaware studied the peculiar behavior of Majoid crabs, known as decorator crabs. This species of crab uses the Velcro-like substance on its shell and hooks on its appendages to deck itself with sponges, algae, and other marine debris from the environment.

The researchers investigated this curious behavior by placing the crabs in individual containers with craft pompoms. Most of the crabs fully decorated themselves within six hours, and all of them sported colorful pompoms within 24 hours.

According to the researcher’s observations, the crabs, unlike Tamatoa, the big, mean crab in Disney’s animated movie Moana, are not attempting to “dazzle like a diamond in the rough” as they strut their stuff but are adorning themselves with decorations for protection from predators. The crabs decorated their appendages first, the researchers observed, probably because that part sticks out even when they hide. —J.B.

A reflection of design

The simple and tasty little scallop may not seem very complex, but researchers recently discovered that the 200 intricate, poppy seed–sized eyes that line a scallop’s outer edge function like a fine-tuned telescope. The eyes use living mirrors, rather than lenses, to focus light. In the study, scientists used a type of microscope that rapidly freezes samples so they retain their shape and do not dehydrate, creating the first-ever opportunity to investigate the scallops’ visual system much more closely. They found scallop eyes consist of a mosaic of smooth, tiny mirrors and crystals that minimize visual distortion.

The researchers made no mention of evolution in their paper. But then, how could they? How could natural selection ever explain a scallop’s ability to accurately process images from 200 different eyes all at the same time? That kind of complexity requires a creator. —J.B.

When truth is stranger than fiction

Archaeologists recently uncovered the full, curled-up skeleton of a very peculiar type of dinosaur partially fossilized in sandstone. The study in Nature described the fossil as looking like an odd combination of other creatures. It possessed a bill like a duck, teeth like a crocodile, the neck of a swan, nasty claws, and flippers like a penguin. The tiny meat-eater, only 18 inches long, walked like an ostrich but could also swim.

Puzzled by the odd appearance of the fossil and the fact that someone smuggled the rock that contained it out of Mongolia and placed it in a private collection, the researchers at first suspected fraud. But 3-D computer images showed the skeleton belonged to a single animal. One arm hidden in the rock perfectly matched the other visible arm, and the growth lines matched across all the bones. —J.B.

Julie Borg

Julie is a World Journalism Institute graduate. She covers science and intelligent design for WORLD and is a clinical psychologist. Julie resides in Dayton, Ohio.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • Fuzzyface
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 06:11 pm

    Maybe we need to start calling the believers in these global warming predictions 'science sceptics' since they are the ones that are not using real science. 

    There has been many doomsdayers of global cooling or warming over the years with little correlation with fact.  But since historically it has been both much cooler and also much warmer than now maybe some day they'll get it right.  The main problem with the doomsday predictions is that they assume man won't adjust to the new conditions -compensating for the dificulties that might result in current locations or with current methods.

  •  Soapbxn's picture
    Posted: Fri, 12/15/2017 02:08 am

    I do not need any scientific study to show me that my state of Alaska is warming.   We have lived in the same home for almost 30 years and our winters now do not even resemble in anyway what they were 30 years ago.  There is no longer consistent snow at sea level as there used to be in Alaska.  Where we live, it used to be rare to even rise above freezing in the winter, now it if there is even a run of seven days below freezing it is a surprise.  The norm for snow load at our house used to be 6-10', and that would stay in place until "break-up" in the Spring.   No more.  Snow no longer even stays, it is gone quickly with minimal accumulation, as it is in the lower 48.  The only constant is that we have less daylight in the winter.   Our summers are slightly warmer too but also rainier than they used to be.  Our weather and temperatures have definitely changed although I'm not convinced  it is manmade.  I believe it is cyclical and a natural process. 

  • Midwest preacher
    Posted: Sun, 12/17/2017 10:38 am

    I am not a scientist.  I don't know about minute subtle changes in weather or whether the changes are progressing toward disaster.  What I do know is that the people who promote man caused global warming have an agenda.  There seems to have been instances of manipulation of data and even outright lying to promote that agenda. Anecdotal evidence is accepted for warming but ridiculed when it points to something else. I'm not ready to wreck the economy to satisfy the desires of people whose real motive may be precisely that.  

  • RC
    Posted: Mon, 12/18/2017 12:10 pm

    Midwest Preacher - You make some excellent points!  What kills me is that the “experts” fly (thus damaging the ozone) to meet and discuss how to do less damage to the ozone. Then they want the rest of us to sacrifice and pay billions for their half-baked solutions to poorly defined problems.

  •  Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Wed, 12/20/2017 01:22 pm

    Computer modeling is computers crunching gazillions of numbers according to instructions that are given to them by potentially biased human beings.  If the average person were to understand this, would he be as skeptical as I am that global warming is an unnatural, existential threat?

    (EDIT:  My question is not meant to indicate that I am above average.)

  • RC
    Posted: Mon, 12/18/2017 11:57 am

    Because the models keep coming up wrong, I firmly believe the models and data are woefully inadequate.  I suspect most scientist realize this, but the end users of the results have their own self-centered agendas with no real concern for the rest of humanity.