Computer
modeling
for COVID-19
was flawed,
to be kind.
Pandemic models
exaggerated the danger,
and insisted we must
lock down societies.
The scary numbers
published by Professor
Neil Ferguson's UK team
in mid-March 2020 had
an enormous impact
on the lockdown policy
in the UK, and in other
nations too.
Ferguson's team
suggested 500,000 people
could die in the UK without
government intervention.
Applying Ferguson's models
to Sweden, which avoided
the extreme lockdown
measures of other countries,
is clear evidence of this.
Sweden's death toll
has been far lower than
the models predicted.
A model
is always
a very rough
approximation
of the real world,
based on
projections
and opinions.
When models
are used
for predictions,
the most frightening
predictions take on
a life of their own.
Climate change models
are being similarly distorted
to demand zero emissions
by 2030 (or 2050).
Policy around
global warming
has always been
built on complex
computer models.
Climate change
is a far more complex
problem than the spread
of a virus.
Certain gases in the
troposphere absorb
radiation and then re-emit it
– slowing the planet's
cooling process (infrared
radiation released into space).
This can't be measured
as it happens in the atmosphere,
but lab experiments suggest
a harmless rate of warming.
Carbon dioxide
and other
human-produced
greenhouse gases
may well make
the world warmer,
but not so much warmer
that we couldn't easily
adapt to that change.
We manage
to survive
one degree C.
of local warming,
in 30 to 180 minutes
every morning,
so why would
one degree C.
of global warming
since 1880 seem
to be a problem?
In fact, there is
a net benefit
from adding CO2
to the atmosphere!
Even NASA,
a climate alarmist
government bureaucracy,
has noted that rising levels
of carbon dioxide are
increasing the growth
of plants, including
food crops.
The alarming forecasts
for warming REQUIRE
a temperature rise
from CO2 to cause
other things to happen
which amplify the
CO2 warming
(aka positive feedback).
The climate alarmists
claim CO2 warming will cause
a more humid atmosphere,
and that will triple the warming
effect of CO alone.
But ... there are no temperature
measurements that even suggest
there is any positive feedback.
The believers don't care,
because CO2 warming without
the positive feedback would
be harmless ... while they
want to scare people !
So their models include
a huge positive feedback
"warming tripler".
We have only a
partial understanding
of climate physics.
We didn't even have
accurate global
thermometer records
until 1979, with the
weather satellites.
The oceans have only
been measured properly
in the past few years,
and the polar regions
are still not well measured.
What we do know
is there is a persistent
problem with models
‘running hot’ –
grossly overstating
warming predictions,
compared to real-world
temperature changes.
One controversy has been
over the representative
concentration pathways
(RCPs)
used by climate models.
They are different estimates
of future CO2 growth rates.
One of these estimates
– called RCP 8.5 –
is used again and again
in studies, where it is
erroneously described
as ‘business as usual’.
RCP8.5 was never meant
to be a business-as-usual
CO2 growth rate estimate.
It's a worst case estimate.
RCP-8.5 suggests
the world population
will increase
far more quickly
than anyone believes,
we will use more
and more energy,
and coal burning
will rise massively.
In the real world,
none of that is
likely to happen.
COVID-19 is
a real problem,
that has been
exaggerated.
Climate change
is not a real problem
-- it is an imagined
future crisis,
imagined since
the 1970's, that
never shows up !