Article: Climate change: Models 'underplay plant CO2 absorption

THE ERROR

Global climate models have underestimated the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, according to new research. 

Scientists say that between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought. 

The authors say it explains why models consistently overestimated the growth rate of carbon in the atmosphere.

Yet another major factor missed/overlooked/underestimated/overestimated by the researchers setting up the global warming computer models. [I have several links to other things below this one.]

If the models are underestimating the amount of CO2 begin added to the air, they are overestimating the amount of CO2 in the air, and therefore the models are overestimating the warming caused by the nonexistent CO2.

HOW SCIENCE WORKS
As I have noted before, the errors, failings, and missed factors that are now coming out about the models are not really a problem. This is how science progresses. Propose a hypothesis, check it out in an experiment, and then modify or discard the hypothesis as needed.

The models inadequately modeled reality. Fix them and move on.

PROBLEM #1
But the models, and their makers, have proven to be untrustworthy. Weather data is routinely "normalized" (adjusted) to higher temperatures for recent data and to lower temperatures for older data. Some researchers are fighting charges of fraud. Others have admitted to hiding results that contradict their conclusions.

A number of factors have not been taken into effect that lower predicted temperatures when taken into account.

PROBLEM #2
However, activists routinely have made hysterical demands that the most extreme predictions of the models must be taken as proven. The activists then demand that the only possible response to these prediction is more government: higher taxes, more regulation, and more subsidies for favored technologies.

These in turn mean higher prices for energy, causing what is called "energy poverty" among the poor.

Routinely crying "Wolf!" damages the reputation of science in general. It also makes us distrust the predictions that are made, even after the models are corrected.

A SOLUTION
Be modest; be accurate; be willing to admit mistakes, even failures. And stop feeding hysterical activists.