A new evidence-based study provides compelling evidence for decades, The IPCC has been engaged in “advocacy research” or “conducting anti-old practices designed to support a given hypothesis”. [emphasis, links added]
IPCC prefers climate model parameters (called Anthro model in the study) used to support narratives caused by climate change primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.
[It is] So wrong that even a stripping benchmark model that merely prompts future temperatures will not deviate from the historical average, surpassing most people's performance over IPCC's modeling.
“The IPCC’s anthropogenic climate change model lacks predictive validity. For most estimation samples, the IPCC model has a larger prediction error than the benchmark model, which typically predicts that the temperature will be the same as the historical median in the coming years.transparent
IPCC's ANTHRO model assumes that (main) CO2 will promote dangerous global warming in the coming decades (most important decades), thus bringing warming above 1.8°C in 1970-2019. [3.2°F] To 2.5°C [4.5°F].
“Since 1970, the prediction errors of anthropogenic models of the age of human concern for global warming were 1.8°C (AVL), 1.7°C (AVSL), 2.3°C (AVR), and 2.5°C (AVSR) (AVSR) than measured temperatures.”
Between 2000 and 2019, Anthro Models’ prediction errors were 16 times larger than those of simple benchmark models.
“…Forecasts from 2000 to 2019, an estimated 50 observations with historical data (1850 to 1899) have MDAE [median absolute errors] Approximately 17°C or 1,600% larger than the 1°C MDAE of naive benchmark models. ”
Instead, the author found Models that use total solar irradiance (TSI) as a climate change factor do have predictive validity and their error range is much smaller.
Given the use of CO2 emissions as the basis for climate prediction, the magnitude of the error, the authors concluded that the unreliability of the Anthro model “seems to be ineffective in policy relevance.”
Read more in the No Skills Area
