Prof Christopher English destroys Climate models.
Global warming protest, Stockholm, Sweden. The sign says "Warning - climate chaos". (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Climate justice and water justice (Photo credit: Toban B.)
Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I.
( see footnote 1 SPM, page 3).
Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.
The models are broken. They are based on flawed assumptions about water vapor.
Even the IPCC admits in the fine print that
the models don’t work. Water vapor in the tropics is the most important
feedback, yet the models get it wrong. See Chapter Nine “Evaluation of
Climate Models”:
Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8}“…In tropical regions, the models are too dry in the lower troposphere and too moist in the upper troposphere,” (p763)“Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets (e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).”
-
# “Only the collectivists would try and house their beliefs in such an edifice”
And that is just what all the increasingly panicked shrieking is about. The global warming hoax is in full collapse and many members of the Professional Left have realised that in the age of the Internet the putrescent stain of global warming advocacy and the vilification of sceptics will never wash off.
Global warming was a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.
No matter how the Professional Left thrash and flex, there is no escape. They were all so foolish they believed adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. That’s industrial strength stupidity. You can’t laugh that one off.
“Indeed, the panel calculates that food demand is rising at a pace of 14 per cent per decade. But it estimates that climate change is already reducing wheat yields by 2 per cent each decade – compared with where they would be in the absence of climate change — and corn yields by 1 per cent.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/is-the-world-going-to-run-out-of-food-20140402-35xf5.html#ixzz2xgqjf1cY
‘Compared with what they would be’… is not the same as what actually is, it’s also, most importantly, not verified. These people live in another reality. In other words, models supplant reality. Yields have been increasing for some time, which is spun to mean they are somehow decreasing based on a non-verified model, (or ‘decreasing’ based on what they would have been if…), .
‘what it would be without .’
Surely the world’s scientists and other bodies are going to start waking up to this nonsense from the IPCC and do something about it. Anyone can see there is a flaw in the reasoning.
Spot on Neville.
And to add to the IPCC’s stupidity the IPCC agrees:
“A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Due to the long time scales of heat transfer from the ocean surface to depth, ocean warming will continue for centuries. Depending on the scenario, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. {Box 6.1, 12.4, 12.5}” P 26
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf
Well done Jo. I love it when I see problems/issues boiled down to the bare bones. It makes it so much easier for the average person to get to grips with it and much harder to argue against.
Information from Donna Laframboise I linked to yesterday allows a similar “boiling down” of the politics. Firstly in October 2013 the bureaucrats take the scientist’s Summary for Policy Makers to Stockholm and go line by line with it over several days to come up with a politically acceptable revision. The 10 pages of changes are sent back to the lead authors of the various chapters to alter the wording / data to align with the new Summary doc.
( remember the scientists have spent several years writing these chapters so it hard to see how they could make so many “errors” –or maybe they are not experts afterall)
Then we find out that the amended Summary is amended again by the UN bureaucrats due to pressure from probably anyone with a vested interest. This is again gone over line by line in Yokohama in a four day meeting, last week.
So how much “factual” data is in the final Summary and how much political spin is in it, is anybody’s guess.
Just listened to a podcast, Alan Jones talking to Miranda Devine.
What makes me angry, has been stated by Jo and mostly all here is the fact that this diversion has actually been a pause in science to serve humanity.
Certain warmists have stated that the sceptics should be jailed for a crime against humanity, democracy should be suspended and even worse.
I believe that the perpetrators should and will be pursued not long into the future for their crimes against humanity as the pause in real science will have unseen, as yet, repercussions on humanity.
So much could have been achieved for half the funding that has been soaked up in the name of AGW. Personally, I believe climate science at this time is not much further in understanding the complexities than when the wheel was invented.
You have to love the idea that the computer models were all completely wrong, but the IPCC now know precisely why they were wrong. Ha! You can fiddle a model to predict anything in hindsight, but that does not make it right either. Just add a plausible fiddle factor in a super complex system until things go down again, for a while.
So what is their certainty that their error is now corrected with water vapour? I would suggest their certainty has an uncertainty of 98%.
What is necessary is a model which predicts all the known past, the previous warming periods, the ones which were rubbed out and cooling periods and for good measure, El Nino and La Nina. It is one thing to come up with a great Spanish name for the events, but does that mean we understand enough to predict the biggest single events in world meterology? Nope. Get tomorrow’s weather right first and establish some credibility. In Melbourne we seem to get climate change every day, or is that the climate?
“Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I.”
Jo,
This is exactly where sceptics should be focusing their attack, because the foundation hypothesis, the idea of a net radiative GHE, is the weakest link.
I understand you may be a “lukewarmer” like Anthony Watts, but the “warming but less than we thought” position only provides short term gain. Science is still wounded if the idea of a net radiative GHE persists in any shape or form.
Have a look again at the calculations behind the radiative GHE hypothesis and have a think what they really mean in terms, not of maths, but actual physics. The claim of the Church of Radiative Climatology is that radiative gases in our atmosphere raises the surface temperature by around 33C.
That would mean that the atmosphere is warming the oceans from -18C (255K) to +15C (288K). This is essentially claiming that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming of the oceans. Given the oceans lose most of their absorbed solar energy via evaporation to the atmosphere, does the claim of a net warming effect of the atmosphere over the oceans sound even remotely plausible?
Could a non-radiative atmosphere provide the same cooling to the oceans? No, because such an atmosphere would have no way to cool itself.
To see how hideously wrong climastrologists are, have a look at solar pond storage technology. When water is prevented from cooling to the atmosphere, water temperatures can reach 90C.
Another sanity check. -18C would mean our oceans were a solid block of ice. Where is the “snowline” in the solar system? It’s out at 3AU.
The mistake is that climastrologists treated our oceans as a blackbody in their calcs, not as a transparent material heated at depth. They got the temperature for the oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR out by around 98C!
Our oceans need the atmosphere to cool them and our atmosphere needs radiative gases to cool it.
Yes, the “strongly positive water vapour feedback” thing is provably wrong, but there is actually a far greater error in WG1. Normal science cannot be restored until the very idea of a net radiative GHE is destroyed.
The World Meteorological Organization
Headquarters in Geneva. IPCC Secretariat
is hosted by WMO
Headquarters in Geneva. IPCC Secretariat
is hosted by WMO
The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
[PDF] FAQ: Research on Climate Change and Disaster Loss Costs and ...
accepted for publication in November 2006. This was a few weeks outside of the cut-off date for the IPCC
4th Assessment ... sensitive to small changes in assumptions, so it was
concluded that it was not possible to show a statistically convincing linkage
support.rms.com/Publications/2010_FAQ_IPCC.pdf WMO | OMM (WMOnews) on Twitter
The latest from WMO
| OMM (@WMOnews). The World Meteorological Organization is the U.N.'s
authoritative voice on weather, climate and water. Geneva, Switzerland
twitter.com/WMOnewsauthoritative - Definition of authoritative
The definition of authoritative is someone or something having power, influence or the right to control* and make decisions.
yourdictionary.com/authoritative* ( Remember King Canute ? His renouncement/debunking of divine authority is a morality tale and cautionary warning against imperial arrogance )
Definitions of authoritative - OneLook Dictionary Search
Quick definitions from WordNet (authoritative) adjective: sanctioned by established authority ("An authoritative communique") adjective: having authority or ascendancy or influence ("The captain's authoritative manner")
onelook.com/?w=authoritativeWUWT
Why models can't predict climate accurately
6. It is better to understand the science than to reject the models, which are “the best method we currently have for reasoning about the effects of our (in)actions on future climate”.......................................................................................................................
No one is “rejecting” the models. However, they have accorded a substantially greater weighting to our warming influence than seems at all justifiable on the evidence to date. And Dr Cawley’s argument at this point is a common variant of the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. The correct question is not whether the models are the best method we have but whether, given their inherent limitations, they are – or can ever be – an adequate method of making predictions (and, so far, extravagantly excessive ones at that) on the basis of which the West is squandering $1 billion a day to no useful effect.
The answer to that question is No. Our knowledge of key processes – notably the behavior of clouds and aerosols – remains entirely insufficient. For example, a naturally-recurring (and unpredicted) reduction in cloud cover in just 18 years from 1983-2001 caused 2.9 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing. That natural forcing exceeded by more than a quarter the entire 2.3 W m–2 anthropogenic forcing in the 262 years from 1750-2011 as published in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment report. Yet the models cannot correctly represent cloud forcings.
Then there are temperature feedbacks, which the models use to multiply the direct warming from greenhouse gases by 3. By this artifice, they contrive a problem out of a non-problem: for without strongly net-positive feedbacks the direct warming even from a quadrupling of today’s CO2 concentration would be a harmless 2.3 Cº.
But no feedback’s value can be directly measured, or theoretically inferred, or distinguished from that of any other feedback, or even distinguished from the forcing that triggered it. Yet the models pretend otherwise. They assume, for instance, that because the Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that the atmosphere can carry near-exponentially more water vapor as it warms it must do so. Yet some records, such as the ISCCP measurements, show water vapor declining. The models are also underestimating the cooling effect of evaporation threefold. And they are unable to account sufficiently for the heteroskedasticity evident even in the noise that overlies the signal.
But the key reason why the models will never be able to make policy-relevant predictions of future global temperature trends is that, mathematically speaking, the climate behaves as a chaotic object. A chaotic object has the following characteristics:
1. It is not random but deterministic. Every change in the climate happens for a reason.
2. It is aperiodic. Appearances of periodicity will occur in various elements of the climate, but closer inspection reveals that often the periods are not of equal length (Fig. 1).
3. It exhibits self-similarity at different scales. One can see this scalar self-similarity in the global temperature record (Fig. 1).
4. It is extremely sensitive to the most minuscule of perturbations in its initial conditions. This is the “butterfly effect”: a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and rain falls on London (again).
5. Its evolution is inherently unpredictable, even by the most sophisticated of models, unless perfect knowledge of the initial conditions is available. With the climate, it’s not available.
There are a lot of simulations in use
for a lot of physical phenomena, but in every case that I know of where
simulations produce useful results, the underlying physics is
understood, but the equations are too difficult to solve given the
boundary conditions. Climate science does not understand the
underlying physics (any pretense to the contrary is laughable), nor are
the boundary conditions known in anything like the detail required.
We are many years away from the equations being known, but too hard to
solve. Modelers are wandering in the dark. It’s pretty hard to
incorporate what you don’t know in your models.
I was particularly amused by the assertion that “it’s the best thing we have”. Bleeding was the best way we had of treating most everything in the 16th century. That hardly made it right.
What the climate establishment really doesn’t want to say is what the real state of the science is. Their funders think it is entirely different. Eventually, the truth will out, despite everyone’s best efforts. Our task is to keep them from doing something stupid before that happens.
I was particularly amused by the assertion that “it’s the best thing we have”. Bleeding was the best way we had of treating most everything in the 16th century. That hardly made it right.
What the climate establishment really doesn’t want to say is what the real state of the science is. Their funders think it is entirely different. Eventually, the truth will out, despite everyone’s best efforts. Our task is to keep them from doing something stupid before that happens.
As soon as I saw the name “Cawley”, the association melan-cawley, or perhaps, watermelon-cawley (sorry).
As son of mulder, erm, pedants :) , once a computer starts processing the (probably kludged, see
?readme from CG1), the numbers have rounding errors. I would go even further and say that the initial state is an approximation, because of differences between binary and decimal representation.
Further to that, with all of the infilling of missing data points, real accuracy (pardon the pun) is impossible. Many years ago I had a rather picky, but good professor who insisted on “working the units” (doing a reasonableness analysis) before even starting work on a problem (shows that I’m from the slide-rule era…). He was also very careful about accuracy and precision, and the misuse thereof (yep, right, show me a thermometer with four digits….).
Ends up as lies, darned lies, and Climate Models…
Prof Christopher English destroys Climate models.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hvhipLNeda4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hvhipLNeda4
“No skeptic has made a GCM that can explain the observed climate using only natural forcings.”
Maybe that’s because no sceptic would be foolish enough to try with current technology that cannot run the CFD in the vertical dimension in the global resolution required?
When Callendar tried to revive the idea that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability in 1938, Sir George Simpson had this to say -
“..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”
Still as true today as in 1938. If the models cannot properly model all non-radiative transports, then they cannot work. But climastrologists would not dare trying to properly model non-radiative transports because that would reveal that the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans was cooling of the oceans. That would defeat the true purpose of the models, which is propaganda tools.
‘Coyote Climate Model’
Maybe that’s because no sceptic would be foolish enough to try with current technology that cannot run the CFD in the vertical dimension in the global resolution required?
When Callendar tried to revive the idea that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability in 1938, Sir George Simpson had this to say -
“..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”
Still as true today as in 1938. If the models cannot properly model all non-radiative transports, then they cannot work. But climastrologists would not dare trying to properly model non-radiative transports because that would reveal that the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans was cooling of the oceans. That would defeat the true purpose of the models, which is propaganda tools.
The IPCC models beg the question. They
have coded in that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming so that
is what their computer predictions show but Nature shows otherwise.
Let us reason within the contest of the greenhouse effect theory.
AGW is based on the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes its radiative thermal insulation properties to increase because of CO2′s LWIR absorption bands. The insulation causes a restriction in radiative heat flow which results in warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere where earth radiates to space in the LWIR. The warming in the lower atmosphere causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which results in more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. This mechanism provides a positive feedback. The results of added insulation and positive H2O feedback is modeled as if it were another heat source but that is not what really happens in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat from the surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat is moved in this manner then by LWIR absorption band radiation from the surface and convection combined. So more H2O means that more heat is moved which is a negative feedback. that is not factored into IPCC’s models.
More H2O means that more clouds form. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar energy but they provide a more efficient LWIR radiator to space then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback that the IPCC models have ignored.
As the increased insulation warms the lower atmosphere it cools the upper atmosphere. According to greenhouse effect theory, from space the earth looks like a 0 degree F black body radiating at an equivalent altitude of 17k feet. But there is no radiating black body radiating to space at 17k feet. Because of the low emmisivity of the atmosphere we are realling talkgrayabout grey bodies radiating at higher temperatures and hence lower altitudes. It is these lower altitudes where the actual radiation takes place that is the cold end of the radiative thermal insulation so the upper atmosphere I speak of is well within the troposphere The cooling in the upper atmosphere causes less H2O to appear which counteracts the addition of more CO2 which provides still another negative feedback.
H2O provides negative feedbacks to the addition of greenhouse gases which mitigates their possible effect Negativete Negitive feedback inherentlye inharently stable. The Earth’s climainherentlyn inharently stable to changes in greenhouse gases long enough for life to evolve. We are here. The IPCC models do not include the negative feedbacks so they are wrong and hence their results have been wrong. It is all that simple.
Let us reason within the contest of the greenhouse effect theory.
AGW is based on the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes its radiative thermal insulation properties to increase because of CO2′s LWIR absorption bands. The insulation causes a restriction in radiative heat flow which results in warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere where earth radiates to space in the LWIR. The warming in the lower atmosphere causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which results in more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. This mechanism provides a positive feedback. The results of added insulation and positive H2O feedback is modeled as if it were another heat source but that is not what really happens in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat from the surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat is moved in this manner then by LWIR absorption band radiation from the surface and convection combined. So more H2O means that more heat is moved which is a negative feedback. that is not factored into IPCC’s models.
More H2O means that more clouds form. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar energy but they provide a more efficient LWIR radiator to space then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback that the IPCC models have ignored.
As the increased insulation warms the lower atmosphere it cools the upper atmosphere. According to greenhouse effect theory, from space the earth looks like a 0 degree F black body radiating at an equivalent altitude of 17k feet. But there is no radiating black body radiating to space at 17k feet. Because of the low emmisivity of the atmosphere we are realling talkgrayabout grey bodies radiating at higher temperatures and hence lower altitudes. It is these lower altitudes where the actual radiation takes place that is the cold end of the radiative thermal insulation so the upper atmosphere I speak of is well within the troposphere The cooling in the upper atmosphere causes less H2O to appear which counteracts the addition of more CO2 which provides still another negative feedback.
H2O provides negative feedbacks to the addition of greenhouse gases which mitigates their possible effect Negativete Negitive feedback inherentlye inharently stable. The Earth’s climainherentlyn inharently stable to changes in greenhouse gases long enough for life to evolve. We are here. The IPCC models do not include the negative feedbacks so they are wrong and hence their results have been wrong. It is all that simple.
A short answer to the question of why
the models can’t predict accurately is that they don’t predict at all.
As I’m using the term a “prediction” is an extrapolation across a
specified time interval between an observed state of nature and an
unobserved but observable state of nature. For example, it is an
extrapolation from the state “cloudy” to the state “rain in the next 24
hours.” Observation of the observed state provides the user of the
associated model with information about the unobserved state. It is this
information that makes it possible to control the associated system.
Each of the two states belongs to a collection of mutually exclusive collectively exhaustive states that is called a “state-space.” A pairing of a state from each state-spaces describes an event. For the global warming models of today, there are no states, state-spaces, events or specified time intervals. The user of the model is provided with no information. Thus, using existing climate models, control of the climate system is not possible.
Each of the two states belongs to a collection of mutually exclusive collectively exhaustive states that is called a “state-space.” A pairing of a state from each state-spaces describes an event. For the global warming models of today, there are no states, state-spaces, events or specified time intervals. The user of the model is provided with no information. Thus, using existing climate models, control of the climate system is not possible.
‘Coyote Climate Model’
Update On My Climate Model (Spoiler: It's Doing a Lot Better than the Pros)
According to the 2009 Trenberth ‘Energy
Budget** the IPCC modellers exaggerate the real GHE by a factor of 3 and
the real surface mean heat transfer to the atmosphere by the same
factor.
To offset this excess warming, they apply incorrect physics at the top of the atmosphere to cool the upper atmosphere. Then in ‘hind-casting’, they claim about 25% more low level cloud ‘reflection’ of solar energy than reality.
These shenanigans have the effect of making the sunlit part of the oceans much warmer and the cloudy bits colder, hence no average temperature rise compared with measured data. However, because water evaporation rate increases exponentially with temperature, the result is to create the imaginary ‘positive feedback’, needed to give the 3x real GHE.
It’s a clever fraud designed to meet the demands of the politicians and the Mafia who own renewables and carbon trading, for a way to con the Public.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.210.2513
To offset this excess warming, they apply incorrect physics at the top of the atmosphere to cool the upper atmosphere. Then in ‘hind-casting’, they claim about 25% more low level cloud ‘reflection’ of solar energy than reality.
These shenanigans have the effect of making the sunlit part of the oceans much warmer and the cloudy bits colder, hence no average temperature rise compared with measured data. However, because water evaporation rate increases exponentially with temperature, the result is to create the imaginary ‘positive feedback’, needed to give the 3x real GHE.
It’s a clever fraud designed to meet the demands of the politicians and the Mafia who own renewables and carbon trading, for a way to con the Public.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.210.2513
No one is “rejecting” the models.I do.
To be accurate, I am rejecting reductionist computational general circulation climate models. I am rejecting them, because they are trying to simulate a single run of a unique entity (terrestrial climate) with no adequate physical understanding of the general class to which said entity belongs to.
The class is that of irreproducible quasi stationary non equilibrium thermodynamic systems. Some members of this class could be studied experimentally in the lab, but that was never done. Also, no entity belonging to this class had a successful computational model ever.
A system is irreproducible, if microstates belonging to the same macrostate can evolve into different macrostates in a short time, which is certainly the case with chaos. For such systems not even straightforward definition of Jaynes entropy is known, therefore doing theoretical thermodynamics on them is premature.
However, all is not lost, there is tantalizing evidence of unexplained symmetries in the climate system. One could do experiments in the lab to see if it is a general property of such systems and if it is related to some variational principle. That’s how science is supposed to work.
Until such time saying models built along the current paradigm are “the best method we currently have for reasoning about the effects of our (in)actions on future climate” is plain silly. If the best we have is inadequate, we have nothing to work with.
92-94% of all CO2 comes from vulcanos.
Active and dead. All readings close to vulcanos, such as in Hawaii only
comes from instruments placed there by vulcanoexperts who use figures to
calculate next eruption. Rest of CO2 comes almost all from natural
sources.
As for computermodels (I am educated systemprogrammer as well as teacher in Geography (including Geologi), History and some other subjects) Computermodels never ever can be better than the skill the systemprogrammer has and only if all factors/variables that is at hand in real life, at least 43 to take into account, as well as correct (not corrected figures) are what’s used in program/model. (I used 43 variables including underwaterstreams etc when I myself wrote a program in early 1990′s in order to establish correct sealevel in Oceans from Stone Age up to 1000 AD). For todays so called models – well none of them would have passed to exam 30-40 years back in time. They forgotten all Theory of Science….. as we said in old days: Bad input – bad output.
Stupendus says:
April 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm
“Just take a model, any model and remove the CO2 fudge factor, I reckon the accuracy of the model will improve somewhat, maybe by about 97%”
——————————————————–
I believe this would be workable. Of course pressing “Delete” on the whole file would also improve accuracy and have the added benefit of reducing cost to the taxpayer by over 97%.
McKibben calls for a 'climate strike'
As for computermodels (I am educated systemprogrammer as well as teacher in Geography (including Geologi), History and some other subjects) Computermodels never ever can be better than the skill the systemprogrammer has and only if all factors/variables that is at hand in real life, at least 43 to take into account, as well as correct (not corrected figures) are what’s used in program/model. (I used 43 variables including underwaterstreams etc when I myself wrote a program in early 1990′s in order to establish correct sealevel in Oceans from Stone Age up to 1000 AD). For todays so called models – well none of them would have passed to exam 30-40 years back in time. They forgotten all Theory of Science….. as we said in old days: Bad input – bad output.
Stupendus says:
April 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm
“Just take a model, any model and remove the CO2 fudge factor, I reckon the accuracy of the model will improve somewhat, maybe by about 97%”
——————————————————–
I believe this would be workable. Of course pressing “Delete” on the whole file would also improve accuracy and have the added benefit of reducing cost to the taxpayer by over 97%.
It is better to understand the science than to reject the modelsIt is better to understand the science. And the science says to reject the models. SO I disagree with Christopher Monckton. Some do indeed reject the models because they are useless. Now that does not say that “models” will never be useful. However the ones in use today suffer from an extreme bias of political nature that renders them useless.
McKibben calls for a 'climate strike'
Psychology could hold the key to tackling climate change
“Funded by a €1.5M grant from the European Research Council, Dr Lorraine Whitmarsh from the University’s School of Psychology will for the next five years lead an international team tasked with providing evidence to support this theory.”
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-psychology-key-tackling-climate.html#jCp
Maybe hypnosis is the cure for climate change? anyone got a watch? You are getting sleepy. You will sign a grant for $1million.When i snap my fingers you will wake up and remember nothing.
“Funded by a €1.5M grant from the European Research Council, Dr Lorraine Whitmarsh from the University’s School of Psychology will for the next five years lead an international team tasked with providing evidence to support this theory.”
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-psychology-key-tackling-climate.html#jCp
Maybe hypnosis is the cure for climate change? anyone got a watch? You are getting sleepy. You will sign a grant for $1million.When i snap my fingers you will wake up and remember nothing.
Related articles
Governments must see 'scientific realities of inaction' on climate change, says IPCC chief(blueandgreentomorrow.com)
Call for action on climate change(irishtimes.com)
Was a Scientific Journal Canned for Disagreeing with the IPCC?(volokh.com)
World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong..IPCC fights for relevance(seeker401.wordpress.com)
Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action(climatism.wordpress.com)
IPCC report: Sceptics guide to climate change(telegraph.co.uk)
Debunking the IPCC Report in one Sentence(newlifenarrabri.wordpress.com)
AGW - A tipping point: Skepticism goes mainstream...(tgrule.com)
IPCC 's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming(americanthinker.com)
Posts
