We knew that. Below is linked a discussion by a respected climate scientist who says the models are bunkum.
There is a Prof at U Penn, Scott Armstrong, who asserts he can create reliable predictions. His protocol for good predictive model has more than 100 elements.
That makes sense as long as the elements have reliable information and are based on reliable observed and replicable experimental evidence.
The Forcing side of the climate models and their lack of mitigators creates this run away train modeling.
And that doesn’t even deal with the problems of the projected catastophic effects of warming, which are nothing more than speculations built on political agendas.
As an old man I disagree with the theory that 57 degrees F is good and warm is bad. The projected health and environmental problems from warming really are not part of the problems of the models, but they do demonstrate junk science in another context in the warming projections of the IPCC.
Am I breathless–no just respectful of the uncertainties. Physicists know stuff so well that sometimes they can predict very acurately what hasn’t been discovered or how things will work. They could predict the Higgs Boson and other elementary particles based on their calculations and experiments, but predicting in a complex uncertain environment like climate studies is not so easy.
Well, thank you very much John. I don’t think I’m exceptionally smart, but I have confidence in my reasoning skills. I do think I’m a cut above most people because I’m here posting on this site, where people are willing to throw down the BS flag on hoaxes, scams, scares, and all other manners of scientific chicanery.
Just a quick note on global warming. It’s kind of my pet cause (ant-cause?). I was an adult student in 1991 or 92 when I was required to attend a university sponsored seminar for a class requirement. I saw this one on the looming climate crisis. Hot on the heels of the ozone hole/CFC scam, my Doomsday-O-Meter went pinging off. Sure enough. It was going to be an apocalypse. I’ve been following ever since. Funny thing was, back then it was all about WARMING (no surprise right?). Everything was going to be hotter and drier. Deserts moving out from the equator. Corn belt moving to Canada, etc. The presentator’s maps were all angry orange and red. And the prediction was 1 deg C hotter by 2010. I believe that number is actually 0.5 deg (all by 1998). There was not talk of wacky weather or colder meaning warming. Just more intense storms and more frequent. Now they have the gall to declare that less storms mean global warming.
Anyway, I appreciate your encouragement, but I don’t think I’m really cut out to be a bona fide contributer. God knows, the people here will tell you they can’t make heads or tails of some of my posts. I think I’ll remain a sometimes commentator. I do hope that occasionally I make a good point, strike a chord, or do a good turn of phrase.
“The secrets of
the climate system
are locked away in
the Navier-Stokes
equations, but they
are too complex to
be solved directly.”
There is a one million dollar reward to solve the Navier Stokes equation – GOOD LUCK!
I thought I said–very nice, but it’s still in my inbox.
and I would say, u be high class commenter, recommended for training wheels as an independent commenter to mr. big.
John Dale Dunn MD JD Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center Fort Hood, Texas Medical Officer, Sheriff Bobby Grubbs Brown County, Texas 325 784 6697 (h) 642 5073 (c)
I am grateful for your fine post.
thanks
are your really that smart?
if you are maybe you need to have the keys to the junk science car so you can make some independent posts? will ask the boss.
John Dale Dunn MD JD Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center Fort Hood, Texas Medical Officer, Sheriff Bobby Grubbs Brown County, Texas 325 784 6697 (h) 642 5073 (c)
With modeling, the devil is in the details. The media and liberal academia have successfully stonewalled any public discussion of the complexity and guesswork involved in creating the models. They counter any disagreement by ironically agreeing that the models themselves are too complex for the average person to understand and to leave the calculating to the experts. Of course this is like leaving the discussion of Moslem terrorism to CAIR. Oops. I guess they do that too!
Consider the poor meteorologist, who has to explain why the warm and sunny, high in the 80’s forecast became cloudy and cool with light drizzle and ruined my picnic plans. He might even tell you that the high pressure cell didn’t move in as predicted, or the jet stream made an abrupt course change. He doesn’t get the luxury of having years to explain away his
mistakes and rely on poor memories.
The point being that the meteorologist made assumptions that seemed more or less correct when he made his prediction, but turned out to be wrong in hindsight. The fact that NONE of the IPCC climate models have predicted the climate accurately 20 years down the road, or that their predictions of average global temperatures are off by 100% should be a huge red flag regarding the usefulness of these models, upon which trillions of dollars and entire industries and economies are dependent.
You don’t have to have an advanced degree in climate studies to understand the principles of modeling. Just a good background in science will do. It doesn’t require a brainiac to understand that if models are not predicting accurately, then they are flawed. If they are as flawed as badly as the IPCC climate models, it’s obvious that the problems go well beyond tweaking the data. There are fundamental errors in place. My guess that one of these is the idea that man-made CO2 is the primary driving factor in climate change. As long as they persist with this tenet, they’ll never get accurate models. But don’t look for them to overhaul their models anytime soon.
They need to go to “Seers” and get a crystal ball.