The whole “global warming” scenario is based on a computer model.
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/
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.
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.
A major scandal is currently brewing under the radar right nkw. (Lord) Christopher Monckton of Brenchley discovered a stunning problem with ALL models, involving control theory feedback science. It is complicated, but quite revolutionary. Hard to summarize, but appears to be quite correct. It proves what we all intuitively know: the Earth is self regulating, and future temperature increases MUST be very low. Incredible piece of work that will blow up the entire scam. Will be published soon.
Read here for partial preview (ery technical, with math):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/24/did-official-climatology-know-its-predictions-were-nonsense/
It is nice someone has the hard science behind this, but it is obvious on the face of it — simply logicial inference — that CO2 cannot cause runaway planetary warming.
We have had 5 major ice ages interspersed with temporary warm periods. If high atmospheric C02 concentrations resulted in runaway planetary warming as suggested by the comical IPCC models, then a return to an ice age would be physically impossible. The planet could never cool substantially. Temperatures would vary in the short term but would constantly rise in the long term. That we have had 5 protracted ice ages is sufficient evidence alone of the impossibility of the IPCC models that conclude high atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause catastrophic runaway planetary warming.
With AGW claims, I’e always wondered about the impacts of deforestation (America in the 1800’s and elsewhere later) then tilled bare dirt fields spring and fall, concrete and asphalt roads and parking lots, and asphalt roofs.
Then, many temperature stations placed in areas of asphalt development.
Above all, that gigantic nuclear fireball, Sol (which now is letting us cool, it appears, from a solar Grand Minimum).
I believe CO2 follows temps, doesn’t lead, and that AGW zealots are all about grant $$$ and tax grabbing.
In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry
...
Both of them are retire and outside academia so they don’t have to worry about their careers being ruined by being truthful.
Money quote: "The resulting warming [under the status quo] would be below the target set at the Paris agreement."
Oh really? This whole multi-billion scam, even if cranked up to the max, would deliver "results" not effectively different than what's trending now?
Oh, good.
Now we can breathe again.
Folks, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's an atmospheric fertilizer. If it increased threefold it would bring us up much closer to the optimal levels they aim for in greenhouses. You know: to produce lush plant growth.
The ordinary, lifegiving process of organic decompositon produces robust amounts of the choicest of greenhouse gases: methane, water vapor, and CO2. I'm gonna take my life in my hands and triple my compost pile. Greenhouse optimization, here we come!
