Worried About the Weather in 4015
What single legitimate reason could possible exist that explains why Western academia steadfastly refuses to insist on robust model verification and validation in climate science? There are many possible reasons but they’re all bad, pointing to duplicity, lack of institutional honor, vested interests, ulterior motives, ignorance and fear.
Without Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ and the assumptions underlying it, there is no alarm about humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate models run hot because the underlying assumptions are wrong. Besides, global warming is not a net-negative: it’s been good for all living things. The UN’s official climate science prognostications of doom have really been a stick up!
“Exaggerated, worst-case claims,” says Bjorn Lomborg (The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism), “result in bad policy and they ignore a wealth of encouraging data.” The current research on climate (see–e.g., Monckton, et al, below) shows, “the now-realized projections of the general-circulation models have proven to be relentlessly exaggerated.” Moreover, even if humanity arguably does have some minor impact on the global temperature of the Earth it is estimated that about half of the effect will occur over the next 100 years and is likely to be a good thing (e.g., fewer natural disasters and less poverty) while, “the equilibrium temperature response [caused by the remaining effect] may not be attained for several millennia.” Our schoolteachers aren’t really alarmed about the weather in 4015: they are scared today about something that hasn’t happened.
It is no accident that 90% of the world’s living species thrive in the warm, wet tropics, while only 1% live at the cold, dry poles. ~Monckton, et al., (Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model)
Left-leaning politicians have used the exaggerated predictions of academia to justify a relentless intrusion into society and the nation’s economy. What if the terrible truth about global warming is that it really has nothing at all to do with CO2? What if it’s just a hoax and a scare tactic? What if it’s just a belief — like a belief in aliens — real to the believer but nothing anyone can prove or disprove? What if government and government policy is evil? That’s the way it was in Germany, not so long ago: an evil government with too much power deciding who should live; and, government now wants to tell us how we must live.
The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected… In other words, for at least the next two decades, solar and wind energy are simply expensive, feel-good measures that will have an imperceptible climate impact. ~Bjorn Lomborg
In a recent study researchers adjusted for errors in the climate models such as modelers’ uses of assumed positive feedback mechanisms and amplification equations that double or even triple temperatures due to assumed increases due to human-produced greenhouse gases (GHG). We now know that the major feedback mechanism, water vapor, may actually be a negative feedback. Researchers found that the amplification equations used where, “borrowed from electronic circuitry” and not, “applicable to dynamical systems such as the Earth’s atmosphere.” Moreover, modelers’ assumptions about GHG increases are “implausible,” such as the growth of the global population that even defies UN estimates, and an exaggerated contribution of the use of coal to generate the world’s energy supply at a time when we see from our own experience that steep increases in the uses of natural gas is actually replacing existing coal use. Moreover, the CH4 (Methane, the most potent GHG) growth rate assumed by modelers is, “seven times the observed rate of increase over recent decades.” When the obvious errors are corrected, “the likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 Cº but 1 Cº or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 C° warming would result.” (See, Monckton, ibid)
There’s a good reason why no one makes important decisions in life based on the results of a mathematical model. We can use our brains, perhaps the most powerful computers in the universe, to weave past experiences, current observations and personal insights into reasonable guesses about our future, understanding full well that many things in life are out of our control and subject to the whims of nature. Our brains tell us we cannot trust climate models that cannot even predict the past. The models cannot hindcast –i.e., we cannot put the data into the models that were made based on the data, to predict what we already know actually happened.
Much of the climate science that purports to support Western governments’ fears about the supposed human GHG problem is nothing but demonstrably fallacious statistical gobbledygook. For example, analyzing the recently published Marotzke and Forster paper in the journal, Nature, Nic Lewis finds that, the only valid conclusion the paper’s authors come to – that the GMST (global mean surface temperature) trend over the period studied (1900 and 2012) is dominated by internal variability – is not actually established by anything in the paper, whereas there is nothing else in the paper that is actually valid as all of the remaining conclusions are the product of circular reasoning. Lewis reports Gordon Hughes’ unpolitic comment that the statistical methods used in the paper demonstrate that, climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.
There is merit in recognizing reality. The case made for global warming alarmism shows us, for example, how not to do applied statistics. It also demonstrates to us that the Western education complex is unsound, climate scientists are incompetent, government too large, official climate models overestimate the effect on average global temperatures due to radiative forcing from increasing GHGs, effects of natural variation dominate climate change and fears about global warming are unfounded.
Climate models leave nothing up to nature. According to government scientists humanity is solely responsible for climate change. The models leave nothing up to chance and are wholly unable to deal with the chaos and uncertainty that humans routinely reckon with all the time. “We would go on to suggest,” say Tom Stohlgren and Dan Binkley (Are Some Scientists Overstating Predictions? Or How Good are Crystal Balls?), “that it’s the scientist’s responsibility to asses the validity of their predictions over time, and to follow up on news reports and uses of their model results, and respond to misuses of their results. Overstating predictions is a great way to lose credibility. As Mark Twain said, There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
We just made up those statistics, but that’s what we often do when predicting the future– Stohlgren, et al. (ibid)