<< WALKER TALKS ~ MAIN ~ TRAIL OF DEATH >>
REALITY WRONG
Computer models might be even less sensible than supermodels:
Computer models that form the basis for future global warming predictions have projected significantly more warming in recent years than has actually occurred, concludes a comprehensive new scientific study.
“A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions,” published in the December 2007 International Journal of Climatology, is the latest study to cast doubt on the efficacy of climate modeling. Climate scientists David H. Douglass, John Christy, and S. Fred Singer analyzed 22 climate models and found their predictions at odds with actual warming over the past 30 years.
No problem - as Roger A. Pielke Jr. points out, warmenists can always rework their predictions if models are astray:
The IPCC actually has a pretty good track record in its predictions, especially after it dramatically reduced its 1990 prediction. This record is clouded by an appearance of post-hoc curve fitting. In each of 1995, 2001, and 2007 the changes to the IPCC predictions had the net result of improving predictive performance with observations that had already been made. This is a bit like predicting today’s weather at 6PM.
And among other prediction problems:
Europe’s environment chief has admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems raised by its policy to get 10 per cent of Europe’s fuels from plants.
Revised reports indicate some biofuels do not reduce carbon emissions as had previously been thought, and warn of rising food prices and rainforest destruction from increased biofuel production.
Any Claims that the output of Computer Models of long term climate is useful is a LIE.
Climate models are recursive functions, and over time will suffer from exponential error. Over the longer term (> 2 weeks) the error will swamp any predictive information.
Dice are a more useful predictor of climate change (easier to use) and just as accurate.
Golly gee, climate scientists say that ”...no current climate model can explain the causes of climate changes, accurately predict future climate, or form a sound basis for environmental policy.”
So much for “scientific consensus” on
global warmingglobal coolingclimate change.I wonder how many environmental alarmists are getting ready to burn heretics at the stake? After buying suitable carbon credits, of course.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 01 14 at 10:22 AM • permalinkAnd here’s the study itself (“A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions”):
http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdfThe “appearance of post-hoc curve fitting” reminds me of the story of the Texas sharpshooter who went into a barn with a revolver, a lantern, and a big yellow lumber crayon. He blazed away in all directions, and using the lantern, found each of the bullet holes. He drew a bulls-eye around each one and exclaimed, “My God, what a good shot I am!”
Revised reports indicate some biofuels do not reduce carbon emissions
Wait a minute! You mean burning fuel derived from carbon based organic matter releases *gasp* carbon? Who on earth could have predicted that?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2008 01 14 at 11:11 AM • permalinkAmerican climate guru Yogi Berra once said, “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.”
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2008 01 14 at 12:06 PM • permalinkThat the EU could not forsee the consequences of turning food into fuel - rising food prices - is negligence. If it persists, it will criminal because world food production is struggling to keep up with demand. Someone is going to starve to death because of the EU’s stupidity - and a stupidity being echoed in Australia with the push for mandatory ethanol in fuels.
I’ve been following the el nino/enso predictions of the BoM for a while now. They report the average or consensus of 6 to 8 models.
Their predictions are totally and hopelessly wrong even on timescales of 2 or 3 months.
The forecasts are updated every 2 to 4 weeks and no reference is ever made to the fact that previous forecasts were wrong, and the latest forecast is presented as if they had been saying this all along.
Surreal. And we are expected to trust climate forecasts out a 100 years?
A model is only as comprehensive as the data included, and deciding some data is irrelevant is a decision prone to error.
Example: More CO2 means more energy stays in the system and temperatures rise. Higher temperatures means more evaporation, and more water vapor in a given volume of air. More water vapor, more clouds and more cloud cover. Clouds reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy available to be trapped by the extra CO2. Result? Temperatures don’t rise as fast as you thought it would when you considered CO2 alone and neglected to consider one of the consequences of the temperature increase.
Posted by mythusmage on 2008 01 14 at 09:21 PM • permalinkThe love of models stads at the root of a lot of stupidity.
Like all models socialism is based on a simplified version of reality: All people are of specific types who exist only as economic constructs; The total of material wealth is a constant; If we take from some people and give it to others it will cause a greater total of happiness.
Things like initiative and self-respect are hard to quantify - so they are left out of the model. Even the Warmanistas see only a simple equation: Carbon dioxide is the variable and Global Warming the result. A second variable like inventiveness cannot be factored into the equation. I wish they would deal with people like the weather: Deferring to reality when the model errs.
These models work for the inexperienced (students) and people who take up caring for a hobby (doctors’ wives).
Useful Idiots!
/rant
Posted by Toiling Mass on 2008 01 14 at 09:43 PM • permalink“Computer models might be even less sensible than supermodels”
Okay, but do computer models get all giddy over Hugo Chavez?
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2008 01 16 at 03:55 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
You can always eat the oil that’s freed up.