Cassandra Looks Into Climate Change
LARGE CHUNK OF THIS RECORD VANISHED -
Let me use this place to insert a few key ideas and who agrees/disagrees
- all observers agree that there is warming at least ....
- ocean rising ...
- radiative forcing due to C02 is logarithmic. Diagrams miss this.
Due to my skeptical nature and long experience in big computer projects, I have honed what I call my "Cassandra complex", which is the ability to see catastrophic failure far in advance. This ability has gotten me fired more than once. Oddly nobody has ever thanked me for warning them when the projects actually fail, which they inevitably do: so far, I have never been wrong.
The attempt to model climate (actually dozens of attempts) have been motivated by the panic started by Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". Looking back, virtually nothing in this award-winning "documentary" passes the smell test, yet thousands of computer nerds set to work to prove what Gore maintained: that C02 emissions were out of control and, if not promptly controlled, would spell doom for humanity if not the entire planet. These models had one thing in common which can be pictured as a single control or dial that varies C02 in the air to see what happens. Surely, by tweaking this knob, we can turn Gore's nightmare into something we can control and predict.
The problem is that C02 has a relatively minor effect on climate. By assuming what they set out to prove (the danger posed by C02 emissions), the modellers failed to account the major factors that do drive climate, namely sunlight and water. The models fail simple tests, such as the ability to model seasonal variations of temperature, variations in temperature over the oceans or any recognizable configuration of water vapour in the atmosphere. Not surprisingly, they fail in their stated purpose: predicting future climate. They are uniformly and systematically wrong and all in the same direction. The world they predict is much hotter than the world turns out to be. In fact, the hypothesis that the climate is not changing in any way is superior to anything the models can produce.
I doubt that these models can be saved, due to the single-knob design and fundamentally flawed assumptions. This is obviously a catastrophe for computer nerds who have spent their careers attempting a task that was seen as impossible from the beginning. Expect much ass covering and finger pointing. Perhaps some of the nerds will take the time to learn how climate actually works, but for now, their efforts are worse than useless. They are actively misleading. They pollute the IPCC project to the point that the work of this valuable institution may never recover the credibility it needs to help us understand the risks that climate actually poses.
Bottom line, there is no "climate crisis". The crisis is the panic that Gore started and billions already spent to fight a monster that never existed.
=========================================================
This entry is a record of my research and activities starting in February 2023, inspired by my discussions with my wife's cousin, Graeme Phipps.
- I wondered how this started and went back to Gore's famous "Inconvenient Truth" (2006). I can't rent this in Canada, and I don't feel, at present, ready to invest time and money in buying the book. However, you can see from the preview that the movie is incredibly alarmist and full of claims that make little sense in the way we see things now. However, we must face the fact that many people got their hair on fire due to this movie and have not really updated their understanding since. Confirmation bias is at work. Every new event ties back to this movie.
- Started on "Hot Talk, Cold Science" by S. Fred Singer. I downloaded the book due to my interest in Singer's video presentation. A video review is available here. The book is a bit dated (1999), but I am working on the premise that it's possible that nothing much has been learned since then, especially in the climate model area. As an aside, I note that Singer is not quoted in "Inconvenient Facts."
The growing discrepancy between weather satellite observations, backed by balloon radiosonde data, and the results of computer models, throws doubt on the models’ adequacy to predict a future warming.Singer, S. Fred; Legates, David R; Lupo, Anthony R. Hot Talk, Cold Science (p. 13). Independent Institute. Kindle Edition.
“the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” (IPCC WG-I 1996, Chapter 8). This innocuous but ambiguous phrase has been (mis)interpreted to mean that computer models predicting a future warming have now been validated. But such a connection is specifically denied in the body of the IPCC report (IPCC WG-I 1996, p. 434)—although not in the politically approved IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
Singer, S. Fred; Legates, David R; Lupo, Anthony R. Hot Talk, Cold Science (pp. 14-15). Independent Institute. Kindle Edition.
- "Hot Talk" went on the back burner for now. It is remarkable that the points he raises are still raised with new evidence. The models have always been in trouble, but this has been (and still is) swept under the rug for reasons still unclear.
- Took a look at "Is it Getting Hotter in Fresno -- Or Not" by John R. Christy (FRESNO). Christy is impressive and an actual IPCC reviewer. He seems to raise the same objections as Singer but to the current status of the models.
I have worked professionally on climate problems for 33+ years at The University of Alabama in Huntsville where I serve as a Professor of Atmospheric and Earth Science, Director of the Earth System Science Center and as Alabama’s State Climatologist. I’ve published in the peer-reviewed literature during this time, documenting datasets I’ve helped build from satellites, weather balloons and our familiar weather stations on the ground. Included in these are a few publications on the climate of the San Joaquin Valley and snowfall in the Sierra (e.g. Christy et al. 2006, Christy 2012). So, I come to this project with a fairly detailed knowledge of the situation, but also with a little anxiety, because I know ideally what kind of data I want, but I also know in what shape the actual data really are.
Christy, John. Is it getting hotter in Fresno ... or not?: A book about my hometown's changing weather (p. 13). John Christy. Kindle Edition.
Beside that, John is a great story teller and engaging speaker.
- FRESNO is an education in the complicated job of tracking raw temperature, let alone trends, in just one location. It is also a testament to perseverance of Christy. The bottom line, in this case, is that greenhouse gasses may contribute a tiny amount to temperature, but the evidence indicates that there is no strong case to be made that the temperature at this location has been rising over the last 150 years. It is certain that the temperature in the city has been rising, which is a clue about why we see so many data sets showing an upward trend. We may confidently assume that very few climate Scientists are as patient and systematic as Christy. Christy shows the "sausage factory" that gives us the historical temperature numbers and wars which, at several points, the preconceptions of the observer play a part. To be blunt, if you look for systematic upward trends, you are likely to find them.
- Returned to watch Dr. Soon's presentation on climate models. He's a funny guy, but underneath is a devastating critique of the IPCC models. Christy is mentioned.
- "No carbon dioxide fingerprint in all these statistics"
- Water, not C02 influences most of the processes that determine climate.
- Problems with modeling seasons are related to the fact that the models leave out the effect of the sun or clouds on climate!!
- I checked in to "The False Promise of Green Energy" by Prof. Andrew Morris. Entertaining but not much new. May return to it.
- A random video on environmentally-related topics by Patrick Moore. Entertaining. A few factoids about polar bears and nuclear energy. Shits all over electric cars. Nice things about nuclear-powered ships. Interesting comments on C02 concentration. Uses the "control knob" analogy. An interesting analogy is that fossil fuels are the perfect solar energy battery. Related e-book sample downloaded for later. Some sections are very good, such as the treatment of nuclear energy. Another Moore video here.
Comments
Post a Comment