What I find incredible and moronic is the change in mind set among scientists, since the invention and development of powerful computers, and the resulting ability to produce complex models. Empirical verification or falsification of any theory was and still is considered essential in science. Over time and with a big boot from Moore’s law the models became so massively complicated that they were mistaken for reality. Remember these models exist on a flat Earth. I kid you not, a flat Earth. This should take a whole new meaning to the Alarmists calling the Realists “Flat Earthers” See they are just flipping again. Flipping is something they learn at consensus meetings.
Note that climate science and the so called :”Save the Planet” or “We are all going to die” is not a computer game, and Empirical evidence is NOT “I saw it on a computer screen so therefore it is observable evidence. As in business, dream spreadsheets are not proof of a proposed businesses success, they are only a tool to extract a loan from a bank and to prove to one ’s self that this is indeed a wonderful idea. The climate model tool has been amazingly successful in extracting billions of dollars from science ignorant governments, gullible people and businesses who think that going Green is a marketable tool.
Computer modelling was just beginning to make its mark in the late 70s in a particular field of solid state physics. Probably half the papers at one conference involved the new method. A remark was made by one young professor. He said that “We must never forget that modelling was rather like masturbation, pleasant but not the real thing.”
I have read that the natural response in seminars on mathematical modelling of almost all modellers to the question “Why should we prefer your model to its competitors?”Is is not to refer to how well its outputs compare with the data. Or rather, is it to say: “Because mine is more sophisticated and faster than yours.”Just like “My daddy is bigger than your daddy, so there stupid”
The IPCC models still use a CO2 residence time of 200 years. But as far as I know this is really between 5 and 10 years, depending on the paper you consult. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Using the correct figure removes any problem that CO2 imposes. But if you are paid to prove the CO2 is a world shaking problem then this would be counterproductive and could lose you your job. CO2 has never driven climate, if you believe the data from observations, as since say 1945 CO2 has continued to rise, but the corresponding temperature is still refusing to go to the same party. For more proof in this simple hypothesis just look at the last 16 year chart. Of course this is not only inconvenient but also counterproductive if you are on this enormous gravy train. So instead the con men/women on the cash band wagon invent things like abnormal weather, as in the headline “Its Global Warming Stupid” in scaremongering fashion in regards to non Cyclone Sandy. Really now, the headline should have been: “It’s Weather Stupid”
From a blogger: “The IPCC in playing fast and loose with Forster and Gregory undermining fatally its own story, in which high climate sensitivity is the foundation for all else. No need to delve into that vocal minority that say that there are other childish mistakes. The IPCC has sawed off the branch it was resting on so it matters much less whether other factors would have meant that the branch would have broken anyway, before long. “See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3611.1
Now there are furious arguments to what constitutes climate sensitivity . I will go along with Matt Ridley explanation on that one. Not all of the estimates of climate sensitivity are equal. Most of the studies published in the IPCC bible were either entirely based on climate model output or relied upon it to some extent. In fact to my knowledge there was only one exception: the paper by Forster and Gregory, which is the only wholly empirical study published. If there is another one please correct me.
Empirical measurement is suggesting a low climate sensitivity with the most likely value at around 1.5°C. Higher values are driven by the modelling studies. Moreover, we can see that large ranges of values of climate sensitivity as implied by the empirical measurements of Forster and Gregory. Note: These are not covered by the PAGE model (PAGE economic model, which underpinned Stern’s work.) at all.
The IPCC’s suggestion, that climate sensitivity is most likely to be in the range 2.0 to 4.5°C , is shown to be barely supportable and then only by favouring computer simulations of the climate over empirical measurements. Yes confusion reigns, but is that not part of the plan? If it had not been for the internet, the Alarmists plan would in a large part already been implemented. If that would have happened we now would all be living in FUBAR land.
So in regards to climate sensitivity and the Alarmist screaming’s of massive positive feedback. It seems to me to throw lesson one of the scientific method out of the classroom window. And I really do mean lesson one: “ In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.” Richard Feynman
So an examination suggests that the values of climate sensitivity used in the PAGE model are highly debatable. But of course it’s actually even worse than that (it usually is). Close followers of the climate debate will recall Nic Lewis’s guest post at Prof Curry’s blog last year, in which he noted that the “Forster and Gregory” values in the IPCC graph were not the values that were implicit in Forster and Gregory’s published results – the IPCC had notoriously chosen to restate the findings in a way that gave a radically higher estimate of climate sensitivity. See: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/
Love this: “The IPCC took eight studies on climate sensitivity of which one (Forster/Gregory 06) was the only study based purely on observational evidence, with no dependence on any climate model simulations threw said study in their voodoo math machines and basically came up with 2 x the result. It then put the study up in the graph with the other studies and basically pulled the “Mikes nature trick/hide the decline” game.”
On another study: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL023977.shtml “Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings.” Nicholas Lewis has been trying for over a year and a half, without success, to try and obtain from Dr Forest the data used in Forest 2006. However, he has been able to obtain without any difficulty the data used in two related studies that were stated to be based on the Forest 2006 data. It appears that Dr Forest only provided pre-processed data for use in those studies, which is understandable as the raw model dataset is very large. Unfortunately, Dr Forest reports that the raw model data is now lost. Yes LOST, the dog ate my data! Worse, the sets of pre-processed model data that he provided for use in the two related studies, while both apparently deriving from the same set of model simulation runs, were very different. Talking of dogs, seems my vet keeps better a record of my dog’s health that Dr Forrest can.
The global warming scare has fizzled like a wet fire cracker. The sun has entered a new quiet phase, and average global temperatures have been stable for 16 years. Wasteful and ridiculous Climate conferences in Doha and elsewhere have achieved nothing except hot air and Green bollocks. Kyoto has become a sick joke and is now a footnote at the bottom of the page in history. Countries that agreed to climate stabilization policies have failed miserably and now are retreating from that untenable position. The general public has really had enough of the scaremongering and have more important things in their lives. In short most people just laugh as CACW is now just a very expensive bad joke.
“Note: Portions of the above copy is not my own work. “