Fearmongers prophesy daily the end of the world as we know it if we do not convert our planet to wind and solar energy. Sensible folks realize that we would then be living again the life of the 19th century.
The human-caused global warming scare may well be the best false fear-mongering ever conceived. It has half the world clamoring to be lead to safety from climate change without a shred of physical evidence.
What they do have are mathematical equations considered to be models of the Earth’s climate.
Our government has financed more than one hundred efforts to model our planet for the better part of three decades.
They continue to do so even though none have ever predicted the known past, or after decades of study, accurately predicted what was to happen ten years hence.
If you watched this year’s Indianapolis 500 motor car race you know they predicted 80% chance of rain, but the sun never went behind a cloud.
The problem facing real scientists who study climate with no bias is that the public has no clue what a mathematical model actually is, how they work or what they can and can not do.
So let’s try to simplify the very complex subject of mathematical modeling.
SEE ALSO: The Glut Of Computer Modeling In ‘Climate Science’
Before we build buildings or airplanes we surely make physical, small scale models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built.
When dealing with systems that are totally beyond our control we try and describe them with computer programs or mathematical equations that we hope may give answers to the questions we have about how the system may work today and in the future.
We attempt to understand the variables that affect the operation of the system. Then we alter the variables and see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing, the very best use of mathematical models.
Historically we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions calculated from equations we think might control how nature works. Today we are doing just that.
SEE ALSO: MIT Physicist Warns Against ‘Alarmism’ Over Climate Change
All problems can be viewed as having five stages, observation (seeing physical occurrence), modeling (estimating mathematical relationships), prediction (how the system might work), verification (seeing a correct result) and validation (determining that the result was not a random occurrence).
Perhaps the most active area for mathematical modeling is the economy and the stock market. No one has ever succeeded in getting it right and there are far fewer variables than what occurs in determining the climate of our planet.
For many years, the Wall Street Journal selected five eminent economic analysts to select a stock they were sure would rise in the following month.
Then they had a chimpanzee throw five darts at a wall covered with that day’s stock market results. A month later they determined who did better in choosing the winners, the analysts or the chimpanzees darts.
For many many years, the chimps won so often that they discontinued the contests. I am not saying today’s mathematical modelers would not beat chimps throwing darts at future Earth temperatures, but I will not object if you reach that conclusion.
SEE ALSO: Climate Models Of Incompetence
Consider the following: we do not know all the variables that control our climate, but we are quite sure they are likely in the hundreds.
Just take a quick look at ten obviously important factors for which we have limited understanding:
1- Changes in seasonal solar irradiation;
2- Energy flows between ocean and atmosphere;
3- Energy flow between air and land;
4- The balance between Earth’s water, water vapor, and ice;
5- The impacts of clouds;
6- Understanding the planet’s ice;
7- Mass changes between ice sheets, sea level and glaciers;
8- The ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes;
9- The impact of vegetation on temperature;
10- Tectonic movement on ocean bottoms.
Yet, today’s modelers believe they can tell you the planet’s climate decades or even a century in the future and want you to manage your economy accordingly.
Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysics laboratory once calculated that if we could know all the variables affecting climate and plugged them into the world’s largest computer, it would take 40 years for the computer to reach an answer.
It is time to stop placing any credence in the recommendations of today’s climate modelers.
Read more at CFACT
You might want to add volcano erruptions and associated emissions but the point is made .
.
If historical data exists, it is absolutely necessary that a model works when applied to the past. The current models fail this test in that they can’t explain the Roman and Medieval warm periods or the mini ice age. Though predicting future climate probably isn’t possible with our current knowledge, the biggest handicap of the UN models is that they were specially designed to support the climate change agenda.
The only thing that the climate change movement has to support its cause is the UN IPCC models, and these are clearly invalid.
Right on!
Models are used by those who know what they’re really for to test variables as inputs to a greater system. They can test them individually and sometimes in concert with other variables. But a complex system, which Earth’s climate surely is, cannot be adequately modelled beyond predicting when the sun will rise and set at any location on the surface.
In the case of comparing climate models to economic models, it would be like predicting the next worldwide financial crisis based on the guesswork of the result if Johnny finds a $20 bill in the street one day. If he spends it foolishly, the effects could be one thing, but if he saves it, lets it grow for many years and adds to it with earned profits, the results could be quite the opposite. But the models are not based on how he uses the $20, just on the fact that he found the money.