First published at American Thinker
By Norman Rogers – November 27, 2021
Climate change prophecies will tiptoe over computer climate models. Models have big problems. Based on Kevin Trenberth, formerly in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] the models even remotely correspond to the currently observed climate [of the Earth]. Models cannot model Earth’s climate accurately, but we must believe that, if carbon dioxide has a definite effect on the Earth imagined by many models, it will have a similar effect. with respect to the real earth.
Climate models are a typical representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s vital facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate many of the tunable parameters in mutable models to tune a model to produce “good” results. Technically, a good outcome would be the output of a climate model that would be consistent with past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. Another good outcome is the prediction of a climate disaster. That kind of “good” outcome has lifted the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.
Once money and status begin to pour into climate science because of the disaster its people predict, there is no turning back. Imagine that a climate scientist discovers huge holes in the models and related science. Do not imagine that his discovery will be treated with respect and judged on its merits. That would open the door to reversing everything that was once so great for climate scientists. Who will continue to throw billions of dollars each year at climate scientists if no catastrophe is averted? No, the person who discovers any holes will be demonized and attacked as a pawn of evil interests. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer thought of. There are many skeptical scientists who remain silent to varying degrees.
Testing a model against past history and assuming it will predict the future is a method that is bound to fail. Errors start to occur as the modeler adds more tuning parameters to enhance the model. At some point people will ask if we are fitting a model or are we fitting simple curves. If the model has metamorphosed into a curve fit, it most likely won’t have serious predictive power.
A strong indicator that climate models fit the curve fitting mode is the use of model groups. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages multiple models (a group) to make predictions about the future. When asked why they do this instead of trying to pick the best model, they say the combined approach works better. Why does averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best model? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the math of curve fitting, if different methods are used to fit the same data (multidimensional) and each method is independent but imperfect, then averaging the matches will actually give better results. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact that comes from having so many tunable parameters that allows the model to fit almost anything.
One might not be surprised that different models disagree significantly on Earth’s climate, including how big a global warming catastrophe is expected to be. But no model, except one from Russia, denies future disaster.
There is a political reason for the use of ensembles. To reap the benefits of predicting a climate disaster, climate science must present a united front. Dissidents must be abolished and suppressed. If the IPCC chooses the best model, dozens of other model groups will be eliminated. No doubt they will form a dissident group that questions the authority of those who have crowned a particular model. With groups, every group can participate in a conspiracy against humanity.
Model matching with climate history goes against the fact that past climate history is not well documented or known. There are scientific groups dedicated to studying and summarizing the vast trove of past climate histories. Their summary improves on the original data in ways that always seem to favor a global warming catastrophe. Webpage realclimatescience.com specializes in exposing this interference in climate history.
Because so much of the climate history is unknown, such as how climate affects aerosols, modelers must generate the missing history. Each modeler is free to construct his or her own history, so different models are suitable for different hypothetical past climates. It would be surprising if modelers didn’t manipulate their artificial climates to make their models work better.
Scientists are always warned against falling in love with a theory or method. If they do, they will lose objectivity. Facts that support their love will be honored, facts that cast doubt on their love will be ignored or forgotten. But if you spend years, or decades, marrying with a model methodology, the chances of divorce become less and less.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private institution in Washington, DC that claims to be a science adviser to the government. Their advice has several common themes. They never criticize the scientific basis and they always encourage more money to be spent on science. Like teacher unions, they pretend to support the common good but in fact promote the special interests of their constituency.
The Academy sponsored a The report about the future of climate modeling. They don’t seem to see anything wrong with staffing the research committee with professional climate modelers. The report advocates more money for climate modelers and calls for hiring professional public relations people to present the results to the public.
The climate disaster that is predicted in the immediate future is 100% science junk. If the unlikely climate catastrophe actually happened, it would be the coincidence that climate scientists have predicted. Most of the supporting evidence is fabricated. No unusual climate change is taking place. Continually comparing the current climate with the pre-industrial climate is meaningless because, according to climate theory and models, the effect of CO2 was very small before 1975. Since 1975, nothing has been shown. a climate disaster or a new long-term trend.
The pseudo-climate disaster has created a pseudo-energy model – replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar power. Wind and solar are said to be cheaper than traditional power sources but accounting is not fake revealed that wind or solar power costs five or even ten times more than traditional electricity, excluding, of course, government subsidies and mandates. The reason it costs so much is because the erratic nature of wind and solar requires keeping traditional power generation systems intact and ready to go when wind and solar fail. Solar does not work every night, every day is cloudy and more often in winter. Winds fail at random, or predictable times, and often have a seasonal cycle. If renewable energy advocates are reasonable, they will nuclear support. The nucleus is reliable and does not produce CO2.
Climate change, wind and solar is a hunt, diverting the country from serious problems to imaginary problems with imaginary solutions that enrich promoters and promoters. their political friends by status and money.
This comment is the first Published November 27, 2021 in American Thinker
Norman Rogers has spent 10 years studying climate change and climate change scientists. He is the author of the book Dumb energy, about wind and solar energy. He is on the board of CO2 Alliance and formerly a member of the board of trustees of the National Association of Scholars. He has a master’s degree in physics.
Related
