Thursday, 12 March 2015

Selling empty boxes of tricks

After reading more details below about climate models, it reminded me of the thousands spent, not by foolish mug punters, but by governments (of course, it's not their money), on worthless empty boxes claimed to detect bombs, that of course they can get away with it in any form they wish, simply by telling people they work.

The story is here for anyone who missed it a year or so ago, and it wasn't a small scale short term scam, but one which went on for some time and sold units to governments around the world. TV detectors have been claimed to exist for decades as well, 'they can tell if you have a TV in the house even if it's turned off'. That was created not by some conman in a bedroom working under a PO box, but the British government, who got most people to accept this was possible, even though not a single member of the public has ever seen one. I'm not a scientist, but the ones I asked agree a TV puts out a very weak signal indeed, a lot less than a computer screen, and becomes a lump of dead metal and wood when turned off just like a rock. But crazy claims have no limits, so why not just claim a metal box can detect another metal box within a small area from some distance away as it is giving off electrical interference, but just to lay it on really thick, even when it isn't. No one really bothered to challenge this as they'd get busted for not having a licence either way so the sensible people bought it to avoid a criminal charge. In fact the reason TV detector vans worked was because everyone buying a TV, even secondhand, has to fill in a form giving the government your address. This is run through a database and any coming up licence free are sent a letter. Simple. They only have the remainder of people with TVs they got off a bloke in the pub and the method they use there is to go through all addresses, pick the ones without a licence, and send a letter by default asking you to pay it, and wait and see the few who claim they do not have one and knock on their doors. No van required.

Therefore most people can and have been fooled most of the time. Fake bomb detectors anyone could have checked, tested and opened were bought on trust, and no doubt some were even used to find bombs and by pure chance dug one up as they happened to pick a spot by random fortune that had one there, which in many areas would be quite probable as they are war zones. If they then kept going and found another one by then the user would be convinced they worked and keep using them even when they didn't and they got blown up by a mine. TV detectors are still part of British folklore and to this day no one has officially admitted they never existed as the scandal would be diabolical. People don't ask and governments don't tell. Maybe a Freedom of Information request would remedy that now, but they are entitled to refuse for various reasons, credibility being a major one.

Believing a machine can tune into an unplugged TV is no less idiotic (with no requirement for a single qualification to do so) than believing a computer can accurately model the entire world's atmosphere and get trends correct 300 years ahead (as does the UN IPCC). They began in the early 90s, so by 2015 we can easily read the random guff they spewed out was based on an inbuilt sensitivity to CO2, which, like the hockey stick, could only produce hockey sticks as those were the algorithms they were created from. Thus we end up with a multi-run projection, where around 100 differing versions of the same models were run, and 25 or so years later we can see the result. And the good bits, ie the ones before they diverged, were not actual model runs, they couldn't be as the models began at about the point they stop following around 1990, the rest were just run back to fit, which isn't even modelling but recreating the known past, something you do not need a computer to produce.

The error margin of course increases like a trumpet the further ahead you go. The normal limit in meteorology is 3-6 months, by then the chance of guessing is as high as forecasting so it stops there. These models however take the same chaotic complex information, plus the inability to include aerosols, clouds and water vapour, ie the three main feedbacks, and expect people to trust them, which of course most do. When you then read the range of error, extending ultimately on the unlikely but possible margins from 1.5-6C by 2100, an experiment impossible to complete as no one present in 1990 would be alive to see the result, and then whatever it is they can claim a goal as unless it's actually even lower (possible, but not higher as there are no genuine mechanisms to do so) whatever the temperature is, everyone will cheer and the writers will get posthumous Nobel Prizes. If someone (oh, they have) created similar programmes for shares and investments only an idiot would put their own money on the results, or horse racing (I don't think they have but maybe Michael Mann will now if he reads this, he's game for anything), but we have spent trillions worldwide since Kyoto in 1992 based on this worthless and clearly unscientific machinery of deception.

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}"

IPCC projections

Now these were used to create worldwide policies, and the temperature since they were made has risen precisely around 0.00C per decade. No one has yet come out to suggest they may need changing, they are still being used today. Graph since 2000

Use your discretion and  logic first, then your knowledge, combine the two and reject the rubbish. It's easy.

By request, the technical stuff: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC report 2001

Despite openly admitting the obvious (to anyone without a personal interest in the alternative), they continue using models, and even though apparently they say they've now improved a bit, it hasn't stopped them relying on the old ones which clearly get it wrong (as they factored in chosen sensitivities they didn't really know at all). That is the sign of a crook, not a scientist.

  "  A large disparity exists among various climate models in their prediction of global mean surface air temperature when atmospheric CO2 has doubled from present concentrations (figure 1). There are an overwhelming number of reasons why these differences could exist.  Although each climate model has been optimized to reproduce observational means, each model contains slightly different choices of model parameter values as well as different parameterizations of under-resolved physics. The need to understand the sources and impacts of these differences was recently emphasized within the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that called for more quantitative evaluations of modeling uncertainty"

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

The same Kevin Trenberth who was caught saying in private "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

A confession and caught in the act. Normally that would mean an instant verdict and sentence.

  • Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society: "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly."

  • Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."
 Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists:"Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view"

None of my comments above were from me as climate models are used by and for scientists, so all the errors and shortcomings were quoted from such sites directly. These are actually taught on some courses, so once qualified many scientists are fully aware they are unable to perform as claimed, but as the public do not then they plough on regardless, as that is what they were paid to do, ie they are indeed fraudulent. And remember, just because I am not a scientist, I get my information from them. This person however is, and apparently has the same views as it is his job and he knows exactly what they do. I'm amazed he still has any sort of career at all after writing this but maybe he's either won the lottery or was downsizing. Confessions of a climate modeller

No comments:

Post a Comment