Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

I WG1AR5 kapitel 9, på sid 824 finns ett avsnitt där vad modellerna presterar illustreras genom att korrelationen mellan de värden som erhållits från modeller och observerade värden beräknats.
Korrelationerna anges i diagram här,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
och från diagrammen uppskattar jag korrelationerna så här.

Surface temperature: 0,993. Extremvärden finns från 0,978 till 0,997.

När det gäller t.ex. nederbörd är korrelationen betydligt lägre:
Precipitation: 0,81. Extremvärden finns från 0,75 till 0,90.

Hur ska man tolka korrelation? 0,7 innebär en stark överensstämmelse och 1,0 är perfekt matchning, 100%. 0,993 är mycket nära 1.

Notera dock att detta inte gäller 30-års medelvärden. För 30-års medelvärden skulle överensstämmelsen bli bättre.

än mindre vad det får för konsekvenser för människan och civilisationerna av idag.

“Converting biomass feedstocks to biofuels is an environmentally friendly process. So is using biofuels for transportation. When we use bioethanol instead of gasoline, we help reduce atmospheric CO2.”

These confident assurances come from “Biofuels: A Solution for Climate Change,” a paper published in 1999 by the Clinton administration’s Department of Energy. Feels a little dated in its scientific assumptions, doesn’t it?
I raise the subject of biofuels since the subject of science — what we know as opposed to what we think we know about it — has been on my mind in recent days. I’ve been accused of obscurantism, closet climate denialism and willful misdirection — all for the crime of insufficiently attesting to the dangers of a warming trend I do not deny.
I plead guilty to trying to maintain some historical perspective.

It seemed so obvious. Flex-fuel engines, which mix gasoline and ethanol, were advertised as the motors of the future. Brazil, with one of the most developed markets for biofuel production and consumption, was touted as a country of the future. Dramatic advances in biofuels tech, we were told, were just around the corner. And biofuels would help us gain energy independence and hence greater security from terrorism.
/.../
But perhaps none of this would have mattered much if biofuels had simply been a bit less successful than promised. In fact, they were actively harmful.
/.../
In recent years, some climate activists — Al Gore notably among them — have owned up to their biofuels mistake. More recently, we’ve seen some acknowledgment of other errors, having more to do with policy than science.
/.../
There’s also been some acknowledgment that Germany’s Energiewende — the uber-ambitious “energy turn” embarked upon by Angela Merkel in 2010 — has been less than a model for others. The country is producing record levels of energy from wind and solar power, but emissions are almost exactly what they were in 2009. Meanwhile, German households pay nearly the highest electricity bills in Europe, all for what amounts to an illusion of ecological virtue.
/.../
The lessons are legion but, more often than not, unlearned. We need to make policy choices based less on moral self-regard and more on attention to real-world results.

The way the EU Emission Trading (ETS) has been set up, means that replacement of coal or gas with biomass will lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, writes Rauli Partanen, freelance author and analyst. And in combination with the renewable energy targets all EU member states have, this is exactly what our policies encourage us to do.

There has been a lively public and academic debate over the actual emissions of bioenergy – to what extent it is carbon-neutral and on what timescale. Supporters argue that even though burning of biomass will lead to carbon emissions, trees that have been cut will grow back, and will eventually sequester the released carbon back from the atmosphere. Opponents argue that even if this is true – and this also depends on the type of biomass involved – it might take decades – and all that time the released carbon dioxide is warming our atmosphere.

Climate Hustle reveals the history of climate scares, examines the science on both sides of the debate, digs into the politics and media hype surrounding the issue, shows how global warming has become a new religion for alarmists, and explains the impacts the warming agenda will have on people in America and around the world.