Climate-modeling illusions not based on reality

Posted: December 9, 2018 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, modelling
Tags:

A different view – source: ARGO marine atlas [credit: climatedepot.com]


Basing government energy policy on inaccurate, failing models is getting ever harder to justify. Predictions of severe climate problems have not materialised.

The US government has funded more than 100 efforts to model our climate for the better part of three decades; none have come close to actual results, says ClimateChangeDispatch.

They are exercising precisely what prominent writer H.L. Mencken described as “the whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”.

In fact, the man-caused global warming or climate change panic may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived.

It has half the world clamoring to be led to safety from climate change without a shred of physical evidence.

Every single statement issued to support these fearmongering claims presented in a new 1,500-page report from 13 separate agencies of the federal government by 300 Obama-appointed scientists, has no basis in physical measurements or observations.

What they do have are mathematical equations considered to be models of the Earth’s climate.

However, they have only a handful of the hundreds of variables that impact climate and the numbers inserted for the arbitrarily selected variables are little more than guesses.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government has financed more than one hundred efforts to model our climate for the better part of three decades, with none coming close to actual results.

The problem real scientists who study climate — not those paid for bias — face, is that the public has no clue what a mathematical model actually is, how it works, and what they can and cannot do.

Let’s simplify the subject and enlighten all Americans, and the rest of the world’s population as well.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. Gamecock says:

    ‘report from 13 separate agencies’

    Regardless of content, this screams that 12 of the agencies can be disbanded.

  2. oldbrew says:

    What they do have are mathematical equations considered to be models of the Earth’s climate.

    IOW a whole bunch of nothing.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Pretending to be masters of the climate by messing around with balloons and chalk…

    BigThink: A closer look into Harvard scientists’ plan to block out the sun

    The project involves a high-altitude balloon, tons of tiny particles and knowledge gained from a violent volcano eruption in 1991.

    07 December, 2018

    https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/harvard-solar-geoengineering-plan-to-block-out-sun
    – – –
    Absurd.

  4. stpaulchuck says:

    in prediction of future values we have a thing call predicting the past. (sorry, I know a bunch of you know this but some might not and it is the crux of the matter)

    you take all your empirical data and hold back a percentage of the most recent values. The rest (usually around 80%) you use to create a model. In modern times you use artificial neural networks (ANN’s). In the past you had to slap together a complex of formulas (which is what most of the current climate models are). Once you get it tweaked to give decent predictions, perhaps 95% of the time, you then feed in the reserved data to compare against the ‘future’ predictions. If the model holds true at 95% or so then you have a success and can generally rely on it’s predictions into the actual future.

    Only one (big) problem – none of these models has successfully predicted the past. The really dishonest ones keep tweaking the numbers over and over each time it fails, but to no avail. The models STILL fail to predict the future correctly. There’s an article a couple days back with the graph of the divergence between reality and some 90 models. The “science” is NOT settled. Not even close.

    Their models’ predictions are like Whack-a-mole. They fiddle the numbers to get a good result at some point on the timeline and then it goes stupid elsewhere on the timeline. Rinse. Repeat.

  5. Gamecock says:

    We don’t understand the atmosphere well enough to model it.

  6. oldbrew says:

    But we have the Standard Atmosphere that commercial airlines and others use, as these graphs show.

    https://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s