Posted on 05/16/2016 3:16:05 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
Great post, thank you.
Dude, you’re doing it wrong. You could have tons of grant money if you just said what they said. Look at Al Gore, he’s laughing all the way to the bank!
Uncle George Soros says that you be lying!(/S)
Thanks, especially for making it readable to us non-scientists.
Thank you.
Pingy
I validated a model by comparing its output from a set of inputs to the actual results. If they are different, the model is wrong, or at least there is a factor that is not accounted properly.
And that's where climate modeling has gone wrong: with one exception, every other model failed to predict the actual results in the past decade.
In my work, that was enough reason to toss the entire model and start over. But, rather than doing that, the climate modelers still insist the past decade was simply an aberration. Or, they claim the data needs "adjusting".
I'll also note that someone experimented with the original model that generated the "hockey stick" graph, kicking off the entire debate. He found that no matter what data set he used, he still got the "hockey stick". He even tried random data, and still got the hockey stick.
I am sorry, but you are not permitted to call yourself a “climate scientist” unless you bow to the religion of Global Warming.™
The scientific method is so passé. Science is now determined by consensus, with only those that have the correct opinion being counted to determine the consensus. If you do not have the correct opinion, then you are a heretic that should be burned at the state.
Unfortunately, burning at the stake would cause more Global Warming,™ so you must be shunned and demonized until re-educated. May Gaia have mercy on your heathen spirit.
I have never understood why Canadians, of all the people on the earth, would be concerned about a warming climate.
Very true, and if you ask most people who are not hardcore IPCC types but familiar with weather data, they will agree that modelling has been a spectacular bust. The real trends since about 1990 amount to this — a very slight increase with a spike in the 1997-98 El Nino event to about 2006, then a flat-lined variable period with no discernible slope at all.
This is about what you would predict (from 1990) if you assumed that human contribution to the complex result was a very small one (0.3 C deg) and that declining solar activity that was already somewhat predicted (more often since 2000) would compensate for that.
Almost every model I have seen is basically overcooked by a factor of 5 to 10 and has the flaw of accelerating warming when many natural factors would lead to the conclusion that even if the warming was real, it would slow down over time.
But people make the mistake of thinking that when they see a computer simulation on the TV news, they are seeing some sort of very sophisticated prediction. It amounts to little more than a technically savvy person programming a computer to show accelerating warming, it’s not really a prediction it’s an illustration of a prediction. And the illustration has already begun to fail so what use could it be?
Well, outside of about a hundred academics, we aren’t.
If the theory were correct, it would do us more good than harm. Vast areas that cannot be inhabited now, or farmed, could be opened up. However, anyone who suggests that would be branded by this tiny band of zealots as a “climate criminal” for encouraging the destruction of other less fortunate places.
However, as I don’t believe the trends are very dramatic, I don’t really think that any of those benefits or problems will ever happen anyway.
Mass delusion has always existed, of course, but this one is particularly strange. It can be sustained, though, since about half the time the weather is likely to be warmer than average and every year a few unusual events are bound to happen. However, as I’ve posted before, climate change zealots should be challenged to put money on these three propositions:
— there will be a more severe heat wave than 1936.
— there will be a worse tornado outbreak than 1925.
— there will be a more destructive hurricane than 1900.
I would put a hundred bucks on only one of these three being surpassed by 2100 but I won’t be around to collect.
(and the point of that was of course that if the weather is not really getting more severe, then the basic premise of climate change, the new name of the old warming religion, is dead wrong. Many in the weather field don’t believe this new formulation at all, there are many signs that the weather is getting less extreme rather than more extreme).
:: and at the same time, you will provide a more comfortable retirement for public servants and politicians ::
Statement of the day!
Please note my tagline...
:: Vast areas that cannot be inhabited now, or farmed, could be opened up ::
Has anyone realized the amount of grain and other crops that could be harvested from the perma-frost area of Northern Canada?
We could eliminate poverty-cycle hunger in sub-Saharan Africa.
I can explain it in one sentence:
Government grants for subjective research has corrupted scientific research.
Being an “anti-science” conservative (despite my inexplicable past awards in the physical sciences), I operate by a simple axiom:
The model is never the thing itself. A model is either more or less accurate - especially in comparison with a competing model. If a model were equatable with reality, then it would, in effect, be an ostensive definition of a reflexive syllogism: “I am that I am.”
I do not expect a model (such as Relativity) to have a perfect one-to-one correspondence to reality; I expect it to have a high degree of agreement, and to be reliably useful as a tool.
The so-called climate models in vogue with the communists are - to use a technical term - crap, tools fit only for global redistribution (which, hey, come to think of it,...).
Thanks for the ping, PROCON, and thank you very much for this contribution to FR and honest science, Peter ODonnell!
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
We still have poverty, because most of the world is ruled by thugs and managed economies, but happily we have less poverty than before because of the growth of capitalism. Warmth from CO2 is of no use because AGW is nonsense, and its so slight as to not be significant—so sorry, no help farming frosted ground. However food harvests have already significantly increased as a direct effect of man putting more CO2 in the air—plants love the stuff and thrive.
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.