Posted on 04/26/2018 3:41:14 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
Settled Science: A new study published in a peer-reviewed journal finds that climate models exaggerate the global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. If these findings hold true, it's huge news. No wonder the mainstream press is ignoring it.
In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
As Lewis explains: "Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.
How much lower? Lewis and Curry say that their findings show temperature increases will be 30%-45% lower than the climate models say. If they are right, then there's little to worry about, even if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions.
The planet will warm from human activity, but not nearly enough to cause the sort of end-of-the-world calamities we keep hearing about. In fact, the resulting warming would be below the target set at the Paris agreement.
This would be tremendously good news.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
The whole “global warming” scenario is based on a computer model.
And the code is not written with Divine intervention.
bfl
The Global Warming Cultists will then claim victory when the Earth does not warm as much as they said. It is the perfect scam. Imposing draconian controls over lives that accomplish nothing but give control to the LEFT.
a peer-reviewed journal finds that climate models exaggerate the global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%.
—
Computer models. Like those wonderful computer models that all the experts used in creating the derivatives market back before the housing crash.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-economists-failed-to-predict-the-financial-crisis/
There’s much truth to your line of thinking.
The problem is most of us here at FR actually think once in a while, whereas the oddballs that believe in glowbull warming have never really tried it. As with working, it’s much easier to just let someone else do it.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Preaching to the choir .
“In fact, the resulting warming would be below the target set at the Paris agreement.” Meaning after they have taken your money for a few decades and done nothing, they can claim their plans worked.
Bkmk
These new “studies” are coming out now to provide cover for the scientists who knew this wasn’t true all along. Today, it’s 45% lower. Next year, 60%. In five years, 100% which of course means the theory is debunked.
I’ve been betting people for years an expensive steak dinner that global warming would be disproven in 10 years. It looks like I’ll collect.
Nah....if you spin the record backward.....
It just says “Paul is dead”
The most damning thing to AGW is the predictions made and how none have come to pass. In 1977, predictions were that in 50 years the Earth would have an increase of 6 degrees Celsius if trends continue. Well, CO2 emissions have increased and the average temperature has increased, but only by roughly 0.5 decrees C. There are numerous possibilities and variables that go into climate, the first and foremost is the Sun. Second is weather patterns such as el Nino. In 1977 there was a blizzard of epic proportion, AGW types did not take that into consideration, else the average temperature would have shown virtually no increase.
A simple Google search will show lots of diagrams and slick charts, but the source is all the same and the majority are flawed and have been proven to have been altered. The below chart comes from satellite recordings (which are the most accurate) and is for the past 40 years:
It shows an increase, but it is 1/4 of 1/10th of a degree. Imagine trying to read that on a thermometer hanging outside your office...
In the nomenclature, that’s called, “retrospectively validating the model,” and yes, they tried it. And yes, they fail.
This is one of several fundamental problems with these models. They cannot be configured - set up with scaling factors, biases, etc. - then given an arbitrary set of historical input data and predict the actual climate.
For example, if you "tune" the models to take historical input data from say 1900 to 1930, and accurately predict the climate in the 1940s and 1950s great... But then if you do not change the configuration parameters, if you give the model data from say 1900 to 1950, it cannot accurately predict climate in the 1970s. So you tweak and "tune" the model for that period...
The upshot is, if the model accurately reflected the real world system, it would match the real world for any set of real world data. But it does not match the real world, and can only match results with actual data after careful tuning for that particular input data set. This characteristic renders these models utterly useless at predicting future climate because they demonstrably do not represent the real world system.
There are actually dozens of models, and almost all fail spectacularly. There is one that isn’t that bad. Russian, iirc.
They are all complicated computer programs, written mostly by people with their own agendas. And most of the temperature data used as an input has been “adjusted” numerous times prior to running the program.
The “adjustments” always significantly decrease padt data, so it looks warmer today. For real. NASA’s data has been adjusted this way so many times that it is considered garbage.
The whole field is riddeled with corruption and incredible bias.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.