Computer simulations
conducted decades ago
didn’t accurately predict
global warming.
That's no surprise.
A climate model
that predicts well
must be built
on a foundation
of an accurate
climate change
physics model.
No such model exists.
So government bureaucrat
"scientists" substitute
their own opinions about
how climate physics works.
That's NOT how to build
a model, because with
enough opinions, used
for enough models,
some models could
seem to be "accurate",
for a period of time,
just by chance.
The opinions are all over
the place, but the average
model seems to predict
+1 degree C. of warming
from CO2 doubling,
which allegedly causes
+ 2 degrees C. more warming
from additional water vapor
(the primary greenhouse gas)
in the air.
The total warming averages
+3 degrees C. per CO2 level
doubling (up 100% ),
for the average climate
models.
Humans have been adding
lots of CO2 to the air since
the trough of the Great
Depression in 1932.
Especially after 1950.
Actual experience
with adding CO2
to the atmosphere
suggests a WORST
CASE for CO2 warming
to be about +1 degree C.
per CO2 doubling !
NOT +3 degrees C.
per CO2 doubling !
Actual experience
with adding CO2
to the atmosphere
suggests a WORST
CASE for CO2 warming
to be about +1 degree C.
per CO2 doubling !
NOT +3 degrees C.
per CO2 doubling !
Greenhouse gas
warming takes place
in the troposphere,
where satellites used
for global temperature
averages are located.
A warmer
roposphere
roposphere
should warm
the surface
the surface
of our planet.
The surface could not
warm from greenhouse
gasses any more
gasses any more
than the troposphere
had warmed.
had warmed.
But ...
surface temperature
measurements show
MORE warming
than satellite
measurments,
strongly suggesting
they are wrong, or
they are measuring
temperature changes
unrelated to any
greenhouse gasses.
Climate alarmists
cherry pick data:
They ignore the
the lack of
global warming
global warming
from 1940 to 1975,
as CO2 levels rose.
as CO2 levels rose.
And they only use
surface temperatures,
simply because
they show more
warming than the
satellite termperature
data.
data.
When
cherry picking,
data to make
their climate
models look
GOOD,
GOOD,
the climate models,
on average, predict
double the warming
that actually happened.
Models look
eveb worse
when back
tested:
When
cherry picking,
data to make
their climate
models look
BAD,
BAD,
the climate models,
on average, predict
quadruple the warming
that actually happened.
A good compromise
is to say climate
models predict
roughly triple
the warming
that actually
happens.
A good compromise
is to say climate
models predict
roughly triple
the warming
that actually
happens.
Models look
eveb worse
when back
tested:
They predicted
very little of the
global warming
from 1910 to 1940,
and predicted
global warming
from 1940 to 1975,
when there was
actually global
cooling !
Any real scientist
would reject the
climate models
as worthless.
In government
bureaucrat
climate "science"
they live on like
climate zombies !
Real science used to
mean that a scientist
would make a claim
( aka hypothesis )
and then test that claim
against independent data.
If it failed, your claim
was said to be
"falsified" --
meaning you must
reject your claim,
and start over again.
Today, when a claim
is falsified by
measurement data
and observations,
the scientist just
bellows loudly
that he is right,
and claims all
skeptics are
"science deniers"
being paid off by
"big oil".
"science deniers"
being paid off by
"big oil".
The Russian model
is very unusual --
it has a very low
sensitivity to
carbon dioxide.
It seems to is assume
CO2 causes one third
of the global warming
as the average
non-Russian
climate model.
Perhaps +1 degree C.
of global warming
in 100 years.
Harmless warming.
Well,
we can't have
mild, harmless
global warming,
can we !
That would not
scare anyone !
That would not
scare anyone !
So of course the
climate alarmists
completely ignore
the Russian climate
model, by far the
most accurate
climate model
in the world !
And that is typical
behavior of the
climate alarmists !
The "we are right"
"the science is settled"
and "nothing can
prove us wrong"
world of
government
bureaucrats with
science degrees.
paid ONLY if they
produce scary
climate predictions,
blamed only
on humans,
is a world you
should reject !
The "we are right"
"the science is settled"
and "nothing can
prove us wrong"
world of
government
bureaucrats with
science degrees.
paid ONLY if they
produce scary
climate predictions,
blamed only
on humans,
is a world you
should reject !