Princeton Physicist Deconstructs Climate Change Models

Accuracy in Academia ^ | February 7, 2018 | Malcolm A. Kline

[Sacajaweau]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=professor+climate+nobel+prize&&view=detail&mid=CC2850D50A28440E4631CC2850D50A28440E4631&&FORM=VDRVRV

[Sacajaweau]

Best video on climate change at Post #21

[henkster]

While Dr. Prager is undoubtedly correct in his analysis, there is another analysis that explains this:

The climate “scientists” start with the desired conclusion and then create the model that supports it. Data, whether actual or made up, is selectively fed into the model to get the result. It should be no surprise that the actual conditions don’t align with the model.

[gr8eman]

My overall point is that we live in a solar SYSTEM...meaning one change effects all! One elliptical orbiting planet’s orbit/position/gravity affects all of the others! If Michael Mann can provide empirical data of the planetary orbits dating back to the period of time he thinks is the baseline on judging whether or not the Earth’s warming or cooling, I’ll listen to him. If not...bugger off!

[PawPaw2]

Missing in your list is (Data point) 2.5: The energy emitted by the sun is not constant.

[No_More_Harkin]

I don’t like his computers not powerful enough comment.
Computers don’t have anything to do with it other than it is a tool.
People have to build the programs that create the models that analyze the data we feed it.
Saying they’re “not powerful enough” indicates some day they will be.
Regardless of if we have a computer powerful enough to process a billion trillion instructions per second, any model or program is only as good as its creator.
And until we know “everything” about weather, their projections will always be off.

[zeugma]

I have a book I purchased back in 1987 called "Chaos" by James Gleick. It is about the history of fractals. How they were initially discovered and other stuff. It described exactly this. We knew in the 60s that weather prediction on any long term scale was absolutely impossible due to the chaos inherent in any dynamic and complex system like our atmosphere.

I really need to read through that book again to pull out some good quotes from it.

[DuncanWaring]

If the models they claim predict conditions for the next century were actually any good, they could be initialized to the conditions of 1918, and then run to construct a prediction of the period 1918-2018, and that prediction would match the actual historical record for that period.

If they could actually do that, they would be shouting it from the rooftops.

But they can’t do that, which means the “models” are utter bunk.

[PIF]

Say what? Was not posting to you. Michael Mann doesn’t even enter the article.

[DiogenesLamp]

They are wrong because they are based on one simple, but limited and faulty assumption. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere the temperature will increase a set amount in response. The problem is the climate is nowhere near that simple. CO2 has been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The problem is that temperatures have gone up and down during this time, but never as high as the models have predicted,

Any discussion of the positive feedback effect of C02 in the Atmosphere that does not include the negative feedback effect of Water in the atmosphere is already wrong before the discussion even begins.

Water Vapor controls the planets temperature.

[Sergio]

Reference bookmark.

[Gene Eric]

>> one climate prediction after another — based on computer models — has been wrong

Grammar question. Is it “has” and not “have” because the subject is singular where ‘after another’ serves as a preposition?

I figured ‘one after another’ would be plural.

[Academiadotorg]

okay, you convinced me;>)

[tet68]

Animal Emissions, and not just cows!

[abclily]

Thanks.

[Titus-Maximus]

Happer!

I love that this guy is walking the halls at Princeton and they haven’t drawn and quartered him. They may post his head above the Yankee Doodle Tap Room.

Happer is killing their sacred cow, and leftists get very angry when you touch their cows. They stole those cows, and they demand that their expropriations should be respected, even by an egghead, rogue, physicist who is refusing to behave like a true academic.

Face it, CO2 is up 13% in the atmosphere and the temp has flatlined! The models don’t work, and the oceans are not coming to Ohio. The sacred bogus 97% of all sentient scientists are too arrogant to say they really don’t understand it.

The sensitivity of climate to CO2 is not well understood.

I thought the science was done.

How dare you question Al Gore.

Hey, you know what, warm is better than cold anyway.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Scientists have no idea of the range of factors that control long-term climate, let alone the specifics of the relationships between the factors and the climate or the nature and extent of the interactions of the factors with each other - they fudge their models to get the predictions they want, but then can’t accurately portray what’s actually going on today with the same models....

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Academiadotorg.

[GOPJ]

"That's why, over the last 30 years, one climate prediction after another -- based on computer models -- has been wrong," Happer says. "They're wrong because even the most powerful computers can’t solve all the equations needed to accurately describe climate."

Are you saying that, like we've suspected all along - they're faking it?

Hard to believe someone like Al Gore who never aced a science or math class in his life would make this stuff up... /s

[Swordmaker]

you forgot butterfly wing flapping in Africa. it has to be accounted for too.