Udgivet for 1158 dage siden i Videnskab
A simple but powerful definition of science is the ability to predict. If your predictions are wrong there is clearly something wrong with your science. The failure, or at best imprecision of weather forecasts, indicate it is not a science. Supporters of “official” climate science, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), tried to distance themselves from this problem by saying that they were two different things. The difficulty is climate is an average of the weather; therefore it can only be as precise as the weather.
I started this article before a discussion about climate model prediction began on the web. A follow up on the topic occurred at the web site of Roger Pielke Jr. It’s an arcane discussion that creates confusion between validation of the climate models and their predictive ability. Validation is the process of testing the predictive ability of a model by having it recreate a past known climate condition. It used to be called hindsight predictions. The idea is if they can hindsight predict then their future predictions have validity. Climate model predictions have consistently failed. Yet the IPCC and others claim they are validated. It is a sham. What they did was simply plug in variables apparently randomly until the model appeared to recreate the past condition.
A good example of this process was the failure to hindsight forecast the global cooling from 1940 to 1980. It was a big problem because during that post war period human production of CO2 increased the most. The reason for their errors always has to have a human origin. They argued that human production of sulfates blocked sunlight and caused the cooling. The problems is after 1980 sulfate levels continued to rise but temperatures also began to rise.
Failure of the validation process is proved by failure of the predictions. If the validation process worked then the predictions made by the IPCC models should work, but they haven’t. The reason must be incorrect assumptions and structure.
Official climate science is that produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Evidence of the grossly inadequate science appeared early. All of their predictions were wrong from the very first Report. They did not address the problem as true science would do by realizing there was something wrong with their understandings of weather and climate mechanisms. Instead, they did what all-official climate science has done since the IPCC was formed and simply moved the goalposts. This is usually done with a name change. The classic one was the shift from global warming to climate change. Instead of making predictions, they claimed they were creating scenarios.
These scenarios were more wrong than the previous predictions. They establish a range of temperature increases with climate and economic models. This ties the increase in CO2 and therefore temperature in their models to economic model predictions. They assume business as usual, which means that continued growth of industrial economies will result in continued increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Each scenario varies the growth rate of the economies, which results in different rates of CO2 increase and different temperature predictions. All of them assume a CO2 increase results in a temperature increase and that CO2 will only increase. This provides the range of temperature increases provided to the public and emphasized in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
Economist David Henderson dissected and dissed the IPCC economic models. Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science and past UN IPCC member called them “children’s exercise”. Economic model predictions are as inaccurate as climate model predictions. When you combine the two you compound the error potential.
Deserts 'greening' from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world's arid regions -- ScienceDaily
Udgivet for 6 dage siden i Videnskab
Udgivet for 8 dage siden i Videnskab
Udgivet for 12 dage siden i Videnskab
Udgivet for 13 dage siden i Videnskab
Udgivet for 14 dage siden i Videnskab
Udgivet for 24 dage siden i Videnskab
Udgivet for 26 dage siden i Videnskab
Udgivet for 26 dage siden i Videnskab
Udgivet for 30 dage siden i Videnskab
SRP snyd er et af mange udtryk for det farligt pinlige niveau i gymnasiet|
Tilføjet 19/12 13:05 af
Togfond eller ej?|
Tilføjet 17/12 16:57 af
3 vigtige uddannelseserkendelser|
Tilføjet 16/12 11:24 af
Vi bærer alle en del af ansvaret|
Tilføjet 16/12 10:50 af
Få markedet ind i sundhedsvæsenet - til gavn for de svageste|
Tilføjet 15/12 13:52 af