Skip to comments.Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II
Posted on 09/08/2019 10:30:02 PM PDT by Rocky
Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.
From the perspective of physical science, it is very reasonable to conclude that any effect of CO₂ emissions is beyond present resolution, and even reasonable to suppose that any possible effect may be so small as to be undetectable within natural variation. Nothing among the present climate observables is in any way unusual.
The analysis upsets the entire IPCC applecart. It eviscerates the EPAs endangerment finding, and removes climate alarm from the US 2020 election. There is no evidence whatever that CO₂ emissions have increased, are increasing, will increase, or even can increase, global average surface air temperature.
The analysis is straight-forward. It could have been done, and should have been done, 30 years ago. But was not.
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
> any possible effect may be so small as to be undetectable within natural variation <
Thanks for posting this, Rocky. All these Global Warming studies are published without any estimate of uncertainty. Ive been complaining about that for years.
We are now in the midst of perhaps the greatest scientific fraud of all time. And anyone who dares question it is slapped down. It would be funny, except that billions of tax dollars are going to be wasted on this mess.
I’ll believe that this report will have any effect on the masses when the left quit whining about CO2 and the right in government begin citing this evidence to prove man is not causing climate change-
While it’s very cool that he got this published- and kudos to him for doing so- I’m afraid that the ‘New Truth’ as dictated by the left is that man is causing climate change, and the whole world practically now believes the lie
I hope and pray I’m wrong- I pray that the right in government will have enough guts to stand up to the truth, AND to REVERSE all the damaging climate change regulations that have driven prices sky high already!
Frank refers to “climate alarmism” so what do we call those so-called (Bill Nye) or real scientists who practice this view? Let’s call them “Climate Alarmists” whenever they refer to “Climate Change Deniers”.
This article provides a lot of ammunition for those who understand its contents (I understand just a little about modeling and the fact that it is NOT accurate most of the time because of so many weather variables that exist (i.e. how Hurricane Dorian changed course and did not hit Alabama as the original predictions said was a real possibility).
I’ve been through hurricanes all my life and I remember Diana and the other big one of the 1950’s, Camille, Agnes, etc. of the 70’s (and the two typhoons (hurricanes) I was in in S. Vietnam in Nov. 1970 and Taiwan, July 1971), as well.
Whoop-De-Doo, we have weather, sometimes nasty, sometimes very destructive. So what? It has been that way for as far back as the records of mankind exist.
How many Spanish, French, Dutch, English and Chinese fleets have been wiped out by gigantic ocean storms? And what would you call those storms - hurricanes, perhaps.
History is interesting. You’ve just got to read it.
I agree, I put two comments on the link, one to that effect. Too much is invested by too many in maintaining the AGW scam. Politicians see this as a means to the biggest power grab ever and ways to control populations and become the new royalty. They won’t do without but we all will.
In my opinion that report should be the end of the AGW scam now in its fourth decade. I was wondering if everyone who has facebook and twitter and any other internet means posted that link, if the president referred to people to that study, could it make a difference? One can hope.
Shhh, you will anger The Greta,
"We choose truth over facts" ~ the inner voice of liberals
who funds research? governments. Follow the agenda or be unemployed. fixed it
The first rule of modelling is that "All models are inaccurate, though some of them are useful". I have a bit of experience with modelling. (I constructed my first model on a vacuum tube analog computer in the mid 1960s.)
Pat Frank's point about the growth of error bands as the GCMs (Global Climate Models) project into the future is well taken. I admire his perseverance in getting it published. Mere mortals would have given up long before he.
Another big problem with the models is their use a value for the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) that results in positive feedback in the model. This is the value for the rise in temperature due to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The values used in the GCMs result in positive feedback in the control of temperature. Positive feedback always results in out of control performance of the model. It would be the same if your thermostat turned the furnace off rather than on when the set temperature was reached. Your furnace would be off all winter, and on all summer. This is the dreaded "tipping point" described by the Warmists. Once the tipping point is reached, temperature increases exponentially to disaster. Earth would become either a boiling Venus, or a frozen Pluto.If the earth were so precipitously balanced on the edge of collapse, it certainly would be there already, after four and a half billion years of CO2 varying from zero to thousands of PPM.
One learns quickly about positive feedback with vacuum tube analog computers. Ours had about a hundred operational amplifiers, the basis of electronic integrators. Each had a handful of vacuum tubes which would burn out regularly. When an op amp would fail, a loud horn would sound, everyone in the room would hear it, and the repair technician would run over to find and fix the problem. The problem was that the same alarm would sound if the "tipping point" in the model was reached. This was almost always caused by inadvertent positive feedback somewhere in the model. The tech would laughingly point this out to the embarrassed operator (me) who would the slink off to his desk to find the error in his model.
It is a point which has been neglected for the most part in the climate debate. I have seen reference to uncertainty from time to time in articles by skeptics of man-made climate change, but this topic should have been front and center in the debate. We shouldn't be caught up in a debate about how much of a temperature increase was caused by CO2, when the effect of CO2 is well within the inaccuracies of the method we use to measure or predict it.
The best that we can do is to stick to real science and continue to support the voices of rational thought on this issue.
If we can give more exposure to this article, it may get some people to start questioning, rather than just accepting what is being taught.
It's like performing brain surgery with a meat cleaver.
OK. It's fair description of who they are and what they do.
I hope that this article will advance the cause of truth over alarmism.
“Frank refers to climate alarmism so what do we call those so-called (Bill Nye) or real scientists who practice this view? Lets call them Climate Alarmists whenever they refer to Climate Change Deniers
Maybe sprnkle in a few of these:
Climate Brown Shirts
Climate(insert your favorite pejorative)
Expand the lexicon!
Posting the link on social media is an excellent idea.
I guess I should be afraid of angering the Greta. But somehow, I can't help myself. When I see everyone in government, education, and the media jumping on the bandwagon for a hoax, I just have to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
I would ask why Greta isn't in school, but school is probably the reason her mind is so mangled.
Hopefully, this article will cause people to stop and think.
There are still some scientists who remain true scientists and who know how much that title is given to so many pseudo scientists today - people who claim to be scientists while ignoring science and ignoring proper scientific methods relative to the claims they make.
Since democrat campaign issues are basically based on lies, how is this LIE going to be removed?
You don't expect Bernie/Booty/CreepyJoe/Kamel/Pocahauntus/Sparticus to just stop because it is proven false, do you?
[[Politicians see this as a means to the biggest power grab ever and ways to control populations and become the new royalty.]]
It is my belief that some government, either local or international, will eventually use GW regulations to make everything so expensive that they can then demand people take the mark just to buy anything ‘on credit’- I think GW issue will be used as an end times means of control- No mark- No electricity, no heating fuel, no gasoline, no food etc- and it will all be done in the name of ‘saving the planet’
But aside from that- even If I’m wrong about that- you are very correct- it’s a means of control- complete control- and it will mean trillions of dollars stolen from we the people to ‘pay for our enviro sins’ according to them
I’m not suggesting giving up- but we’re up against people in power who will not ever admit they were wrong- and they have the msm, schools, institutions, powerful businesses on their side- all supporting the lie- and brainwashing our kid’s minds- it’s a massive uphill battle- and until we get some prominent republicans in gov with enough guts to tell the truth, we’re not gonna get very far at all We need powerful republicans getting the message out constantly, to finally get enough people to realize that it is a lie, that the left can no longer cover up the lie- expose them- and stop the nonsense once and for all-
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.