Thursday, 25 September 2014

Climate models, the weakest link in the chain

As most climate science is based in the future (we are less than half way to reaching the 2C point, and currently quite unlikely we can at the current trend) then we must look at the reason the world accepts the theory, which is almost totally based on nothing. Unless you compare virtual simulations of the world's entire climate with the linear predictable models of the solar system and galaxies, and treat them as real, then those models are no different from the visions of a woman in a man's mind during masturbation, they may look quite convincing but can never compare with the real thing.

Like all serious lies, they start with some truth, the linear elements of climate, Milankovitch and sunspot cycles (even though the UN claim solar changes account for less than 10% of temperature), oceanic oscillations and long and short ice age cycles, that is only enough for the general patterns and not anything beyond. Add anything like CO2 and run the timeline ahead and you are simply ripping off the public like a fake medium. Why is that? Well besides the UN's personal statement in 2001 saying so ("The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.") that is a blanket statement, it refers not to the quality of climate models, as some enthusiasts claim, but their nature, like water not flowing uphill or houses built on quicksand. No amount of scientific progress can change something based on pure dust and faeces.

What actually happens when you add CO2, methane or volcanic ash into the atmosphere is obvious even to primary school pupils. They learn all this in geography as I remember, you start with the wind, which distributes the weather and particles wherever it chooses, and the ocean currents which do the same on the surface. The wind is not unified at any point but varies at all heights and has eddies and vortexes as that is its nature. It has overall directions most of the time, as do ocean currents, but can swerve on a sixpence. The jetstream which carries the most influence on surface weather rises and falls in height and location and is notoriously unpredictable, why every season in Britain has been wrongly guessed by the Met Office as far back as I can remember. But apart from the basic CO2 adds 1C each time it doubles, the rest of the factors causing positive (water vapour) or negative (clouds and aerosol) feedback can't be modelled. I've been told since 2001 they are better at doing this, but that is like saying chimpanzees are better at talking. They may be able to manage a few words eventually but they cannot and will never be able to hold a conversation. Have scientists  tried to model the human mind, and if not why not? I don't even think a single one would try, let alone claim it could be possible, and if you think the entire planet's atmosphere is any less complex you must be a scientist. Except they don't, as they're best qualified to know, which can only mean they are using their superior knowledge to take advantage of people with less, and pretend they can do far more than every single one of them knows they can do, unless they are deluded as well as dishonest.

Some problems simply do not have a solution. Wind turbines can never produce power when there isn't enough wind, and you cannot make predictions outside a linear system. You can't make the wind blow more often or the sun shine at night to power solar, and however good the computer and knowledge of systems you can never improve models of open systems to predict the future. The longer you run ahead, currently the greatest practical application being long range (3-6 month weather forecasts) the wider the error margin, and with the dire results from Britain's seasonal forecasts show you simply can't collect all that information and expect to process it in a way which can see where a single storm will be the next day reliably, so how can you see trends over more than a few months let alone 300 years according to the UN report, after they said it wasn't possible.

Returning to my old theme, logic trumps absolutely everything. There is no exception to this. What's the difference in claiming you can model a human mind, and then a specific one, with all its memories and life experience and abilities, and you'd laugh it away as science fiction. As is predicting long term climate, from temperature to secondary events as sea level and extreme weather. They are making it up, literally.

Plenty of experts admit this, even of all people James Hansen, the godfather of alarmism:
"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."

Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Climate Models as 'Close to Useless' & 'Can get any result one desires Robert S. Pindyck 

" These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome"

 The modeler has a great deal of freedom in choosing functional forms, parameter values, and other inputs, and different choices can give wildly different estimates of the SCC and the optimal amount of abatement. You might think that some input choices are more reasonable or defensible than others, but no, “reasonable” is very much in the eye of the modeler. Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires. [Pindyck p. 5]

No comments:

Post a Comment