Sunday, 8 December 2013

An open climate goal

I always knew this was the case but didn't have any special quotes in particular, but this one has just been sent to me, from the godfather of warming himself, who convinced Bill Clinton to tell the UN it was a serious issue, James Hansen.

"Although I’ve spent decades working on [climate models], I think there probably will remain for a long time major uncertainties, because you just don’t know if you have all of the physics in there. Some of it, like about clouds and aerosols, is just so hard that you can’t have very firm confidence."
Anyone not familiar with climate and related models, think of accounts. You need everything to balance, including management account budgets (I passed an exam in it, so I do know), where you do a year's projection, ie a model. If you for some reason don't have the sales box (back then it was still in books or boxes) you have to find it, or you can't get audited. What Hansen has said here, which I knew to be 100% certain, was models cannot factor the two main coolants, clouds and aerosols (dirt and dust) into their projections, so without the two major coolants (from the same source as positive feedback, oceanic evaporation, and from volcanoes and burnt fuel etc) the result is guaranteed to be too warm as you've simply ignored the coolants. That is like Enron adding profits from the future they'd never made to balance the books, or a firm needing a tax loss 'forgetting' most of its sales. Either way it's false accounting, and wherever you go in the world is a crime. What difference is there in leaving out two sales accounts in a climate model, getting a false positive, and then people wonder why 20 years later all the models (there were over 70) ran many times too hot? This is a direct and open confession it is physically impossible to model ahead properly as they simply can't factor in around half the data. As the entire world's climate policy is based totally on these failed and inadequate models, which have demonstrated themselves useless after 20 years as they all assumed positive feedback despite water evaporating being equally able to form clouds as vapour, which current findings from the present show exactly that. Whatever else is or isn't known, this alone is enough to kill the entire global warming proposition. Within all the material, its very founder also slipped the truth in, they can't forecast the effects in models. Add the twenty years of demonstrable proof, and the game is over.
 I will add a comment made today by an engineer. He could make a 150mm steel bridge across the Thames as long as no one actually tried to use it. This is the same as the models, they only work when not tested by reality. And how could anyone test their models without a tardis in 2100?

No comments:

Post a Comment