Why Climate Change Models So Badly Flawed
Climate is shaped by hundreds of factors, most of which scientists do not understand with any precision. In other words, most of the meaningful variables that contribute to the Earth’s chaotic climate cannot be well modeled. This helps explain why models fail.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists…understand with absolute precision. __ Source
Almost All Climate Models Fail Well to the High Side of Actual Temperatures
A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.
“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”
“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.
This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for skeptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations.
So What is Driving Climate Modelers to Pretend to Knowledge They Do Not Have?
The need to win research grants plays a part. Pretending to be able to understand and explain something will tend to win more grants than confessing one’s true ignorance and incomprehension.
…. about two-thirds of the models’ predicted future warming comes from factors that are not understood.
Now you can see why I said “You simply cannot do that”: When you get a discrepancy between a model and reality, you obviously can’t change the model’s known factors – they are what they are known to be. If you want to fiddle the model to match reality then you have to fiddle the unknowns. If your model started off a long way from reality then inevitably the end result is that a large part of your model’s findings come from unknowns, ie, from factors that are not understood. To put it simply, you are guessing, and therefore your model is unreliable. __ How Reliable Are Climate Models?
Below are a few factors involved in driving our chaotic global climate, along with level of understanding by science and degree of incorporation into models:
|Factor||Understood?||Contribution to models’ predicted future warming|
|Water Cycle||Partly||(built into Water Vapour, below)|
|Galactic Cosmic Rays (and aerosols)||No||0%|
|Water Vapour||Partly||22% but suspect|
|Clouds||No||41%, all highly suspect|
|Other (in case I have missed anything)||0%|
It is clear that since less important factors are over-emphasised — or misconstrued — in climate models, while more important factors are either ignored or their impacts distorted, that models have very little chance of representing real-world processes underlying actual climate change. But truthfully confessing their ignorance would not garner rich research grants to the grand collaboration, and would certainly not have won the IPCC the Nobel Prize.
This is not science, it is a cult. And since this cult threatens the world with an apocalyptic future if it is not given the power and wealth it demands, it is an apocalyptic cult. Further, since this apocalyptic cult deals with climate, it is most aptly labelled a “Climate Apocalypse Cult.”
1) The Cult’s tenets cannot be disproved.
2) Only the State as Church can redeem us.
3) Participation is not optional. Confiscatory tithing is mandatory.
4) Climate cult texts, idols, and all forms of worship will be tolerated in all places public and private,
5) All citizens will perform “regulatory penance.”
6) Failed prophesies are not evidence of illegitimacy.
7) Revered texts may be “reinterpreted” by Cult Clerics (see also: experts) at any time to ensure that the ‘evidence’ reinforces the belief system.
8) If you refuse to accept cult doctrine you are a denier.
9) Deniers may be pilloried in public, excommunicated from any scientific or professional community, may not in any number represent a consensus, must repent to be cleansed of their sin or take a vow of silence.
10) Deniers may be charged by the State with crimes against the Faith.
There is a new sheriff in the White House, and at least one of his deputies is taking aim at this cult-like takeover of much of US science and energy policy.
If humans are to have an abundant and expansive future, they must stop wasting resources and personnel on cult-like pseudoscience.