Posted on 09/29/2019 5:50:56 AM PDT by zeestephen
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura: "Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction. A profound fact is that only a very small change - so small that it cannot be measured accurately - in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2. [Long essay, but worth reading to the end.]
(Excerpt) Read more at quadrant.org.au ...
Sorry. That science is settled.
/S
btt
A very wise man once said: “Simulation is like masturbation. You do it often enough and you begin to think it’s better than the real thing.”
Excellent. It’s something we here have known all along; this isn’t about science, it’s about politics.
Scientists describe this as "the butterfly effect", where a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon jungle could impact weather patterns in very dramatic ways, perhaps trigger below normal winters in South Dakota or drought in Russia.
When they teach differential equations in school, they will always include exercises, drills, and examples of how supplying correct initial conditions are mandatory for a useful solution to systems of differential equations. Like they say, "garbage in, garbage out".
When it comes to weather, only God can know the correct initial conditions, and He plays his cards close to His chest.
“Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public,” he writes.”
Another climate scientist who clearly states the temperature history being used by climate hacks is fraudulent.
Excellent paper.
As someone who has worked extensively with weather models, I can validate this is how the models “work”.
Weather models can be useful, because we can validate them against real a thousand times a year (six hour outputs daily), and find their strengths and weaknesses.
It is impossible to do with a climate model. We don’t have the data or the number of runs to validate the models.
Only one set of data of dubious quality, not even one run against contemporary data. (You need a 50 year prediction made before 50 years of data is collected).
“against real” should be “against real data”
Carbon dioxide is .04% by volume of the content of our atmosphere. That’s not 4/10 of a percent. That’s 4/100 of a percent. With all the hoopla you’d think that the atmosphere is practically comprised mostly of carbon dioxide. Actually around 85 % of the people on earth are stupid.
Dr. David Dilley's observations and conclusions
Professor Valentina Zharkova Breaks Her Silence and CONFIRMS “Super” Grand Solar Minimum
Great article. Thank you. Been searching for something to refute the globaloney warming theory in arguments with relatives who swear we need to do the multi trillion dollar refit of our economy or we are facing planetary extinction.....
“Weather models can be useful, because we can validate them against real a thousand times a year (six hour outputs daily), and find their strengths and weaknesses.”
Since modeling weather and climate (which I think of as basically weather integrated over time and space) are so complex, one should expect a fair degree of error that can then be used to provide information useful in tweaking the equations used in those models.
And those errors should be all over the place, in all directions. One key troubling feature of the climate models is that they all run “hot” - if you look at graphs of the predictions of global temperatures over time, starting, say, a couple of decades back, just about all (one Russian group excepted) predict temperatures higher - and often much higher - than what we actually observed. When the errors all give results that run in the same direction (and the direction that’s favored politically) that suggests they’re not random.
Bump
What you are observing is the bias that results from groupthink. It is politically fashionable (and rewarding) to see "global warming" as the boogieman. So the modelers build it into their models as the "correct" vision of the future. They do this by the "tweaking" the author mentions.
If your model shows global cooling, no grants for you! You are likely to lose your job, as several examples show!
I don’t believe we can increase or decrease CO2 levels in any significant way.
excellent! That immediately made me consider my automotive and performance simulators. Any idea on the origin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.