Skip to comments.Top climate scientist breaks ranks with 'consensus' 'Our models are Mickey-Mouse mockeries (T)
Posted on 10/01/2019 8:44:27 AM PDT by rktman
Full lead in:
Top climate scientist breaks ranks with 'consensus' 'Our models are Mickey-Mouse mockeries of the real world'
An MIT-trained scientist who has specialized for nearly 25 years in abnormal weather and climate change has published a book explaining why he believes the data underpinning global-warming science are unreliable.
Mototaka Nakamura, who earned a doctorate of science from MIT, has conducted his work at prestigious institutions such as MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology and Duke University, reports the website Electroverse.
In his book "The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis," Nakamura explains why global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on "untrustworthy data."
"Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency," he says. "Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century."
Last week, a group of 500 scientists and professionals in climate science wrote a letter to the United Nations contending there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on the issue is "cruel and imprudent."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Right! I see a re-education Kamp in his future.
There goes his career. SJWs will destroy him
Exxon will pay well, though
Meh, Tony heller has been all over the climate change hoax for a very long time. All the evidence you need is right here, and in bite sized chunks:
The left’s whole “save da planet” hoax isn’t about the planet. It’s about money. Other people’s money. Anyone who believes otherwise isn’t “woke” yet.
Translation: the climate change research money has dried up.
Just change the word climate to weather
Many, many accomplished scientists have disagreed with the ‘climate change’ notion for a long time:
Politically correct climate change scientists are following the unconstitutional federal taxpayer dollars.
He will not be able to get a job ever again in the politically controlled world of science.
Nor is this only a GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) issue - the models themselves are laughably incomplete and turn good data into garbage even if they can find good data. That's to be expected in a system with this many variables and over time, perhaps a lot of it, the models will get better. Until, and only until, they become satisfactory predictive models can we consider turning them into normative models. Political radicals are trying to fly before they can even walk, and they're not after results, they're after control.
Phone call for Mr. Mototaka, MIT wants their degree back.
“Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
Trustworthy to the tenth or hundredth of a degree? No way.
It’s not just him; all of us need to read/hear what Dr. Pat Frank of Stanford is saying. Listen to him on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA. You can tell he’s hitting a raw nerve with the Climate Change Maniacs by the number of attacks being made. Also see his pdf in Frontiers in Earth Science journal, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections-mark-ii/. While you’re at it, visit Rush Limbaugh’s favorite Climate Scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer at http://www.drroyspencer.com/.
Obviously, you don't know anything about "science." It is a scientific fact that raising taxes and governments spending copious amounts of money reduces global CO2 levels and temperatures. The really miraculous thing is that is doesn't matter what the money is spent on. You could, say, send it to China and India, two of the biggest CO2 emitters, and temps would still go down! Ain't science amazing!
Nakamura presents his thesis in a short and simple to understand essay: climate models are far too simplistic to be relied upon for predictions or forecasting. Current computers are not powerful enough, and too many variables need to be 'fudged' because the mechanisms are not understood well enough to be modeled correctly. Also some model assumptions (like solar activity remaining constant) fly in the face of observations made in the real world. We have decades of solar data that shows that the solar output does vary, and no way to predict that it will not change more drastically in the future.
This book is very approachable for the average reader I believe. Though I do have a layman's understand of climate change, I have no knowledge of climate modeling. I found Nakamura's writing to be clear and easily understood. He is not shy about his disdain for many of his colleagues who think their models can actually predict the future. He is also honest about the sensationalistic title of his book admitting that he named it such to try and get more readers in Japan, where there is little skepticism among the public or scientists about the accuracy and predictive power of climate models.
This is a devastating treatise for those claim that we are facing catastrophic global warming because of carbon dioxide. As such, I'm sure it will be universally ignored by the corporate main stream media and highly lauded by the AGW 'deniers'. Whatever you think about climate change, take the time to read Nakamura's short book and learn the complexities and pitfalls of trying to make accurate predictions about incredibly complex systems using computer models.
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.