There are no real
climate change
computer models.
A real
climate change
model must be
based on a
climate change
physics model.
That physics model
has to accurately
describe all
the causes of
climate change.
A precise physics
model would be
the foundation
for a real climate
change model,
that would at least
have a chance
of making accurate
climate predictions.
Such a physics
model does
NOT yet exist,
so the physics
of climate change
has to be guessed.
Meanwhile,
the current
"climate models"
are based on
personal opinions
about climate
change physics
from the modelers.
That's why the
current models
are so wrong,
on average,
over-predicting
global warming
by 2x to 3x.
The big surprises:
-- Modelers,
on average,
continue to use
an old CO2 versus
average temperature
"formula" from the
1979 Charney Report.
-- Modelers ignore the
fact that the 1979 formula
consistently over-predicts
global warming.
-- The mass media ignores
the fact that the modelers
consistently over-predict
global warming, and
-- Many new models,
for the next IPCC Report,
are predicting even faster
global warming --
which is very likely
to increase the
already large gap
between predictions
and reality !
Some day,
maybe during
our lifetimes,
an accurate
climate change
physics model
may be developed
to explain EXACTLY
what causes climate
change.
That physics model
will NOT be claiming
the carbon dioxide level
is the global average
temperature
"control knob".
Reasons:
We already know
CO2 levels rose
between 1940
and 2020, but
that time span had
two significant periods
with no global warming,
even while CO2 levels
were increasing:
-- 1940 to 1975, and
-- 2003 to mid-2015,
That's a total of 37 years,
out of the past 80 years,
without the expected
global warming trend,
43 years of the 80 years
did have a warming trend:
-- 1975 to 2003, and
-- Mid-2015 to 2020
Note:
Smarmy government
bureaucrats have been
slowly "adjusting" the
1940 to 1975 period
to show less global
cooling, and one
compilation of the
global average
temperature no
longer shows any
cooling !
Those 80 years
are also a very tiny
percentage of Earth's
4.5 billion year history,
to be used for jumping
to any conclusions
about the effects
of man made CO2 !
In addition, studies of
Antarctica ice cores
found that changes
of the global temperature,
in the past 500,000 years,
happened BEFORE changes
in CO2 levels -- not after !
Explanation:
Some variables
caused oceans
to gradually warm,
and that warming
caused the oceans
to release CO2
into the atmosphere
hundreds of years
LATER.
A warmer ocean can not
hold as much dissolved
CO2 as a cooler ocean can.
Think of a cold carbonated
soda left outdoors on a
hot day -- it will will gradually
lose its carbonation, as it
warms, and goes "flat".
The COVID-19 models
grossly overstated
the virus mortality rate.
Those models
seemed to follow
the tradition of
climate computer
models.
Since the 1970s,
every climate model
has exaggerated
actual global warming,
except for one
Russian model.
The COVID-19
models were
even worse
than climate
models !
Why do models
make such bad
predictions ?
And why do the
worst model predictions
get so much attention ?
Bad predictions
come from:
-- The general inability
to predict the future,
unless a regular cycle
is discovered, such as
the 11-year sunspot cycle.
-- A lack of accurate data.
-- Guesses and biased
personal opinions about
climate change physics.
The attention comes from
a model selection bias:
-- Models with scarier
predictions get the
most attention !
Perhaps because
humans evolved
with an internal
self-defense
mechanism
to focus on
the worst risk.
So modelers are
encouraged to make
scary predictions.
Such as rapid future
temperatures rises,
and rapid future
CO2 level growth.
Even "better"
is predicting
the end of our
planet as we
now know it !
In twelve years !
Those predictions
use CO2 and global
average temperature
growth rates that are
too fast, versus our
past 325+ years of
actual experience
with global warming.
Below is a chart that
compares increases
in atmospheric CO2,
which should have been
easy to predict, to the
CO2 forecasts from
models issued regularly
since the 1970s:
Since 1980,
every model
has over-predicted
the amount of CO2
that would accumulate
in the atmosphere,
as a result of fossil
fuel burning.
Reality is the
dark black line.
Model projections
are the colored lines,
rising too quickly
above the black line.
After about 1980,
every model but two
predicted more CO2
accumulation in the
atmosphere than
was observed.
One of those two
models only ran
from 1970 to 2000,
and the other model
-- the green line --
went flat after 2000,
by assuming that
CO2 emissions
would stop rising
after 2000.
The same model,
when run under
the assumption
CO2 emissions
would continue
to rise after 2000,
would have also
over-predicted
CO2 accumulation.
The initial distribution
of unbiased models
should be random
errors.
After comparing the
model predictions
against actual results
over the next
decades or two, and
revising the models
to better match reality,
future climate predictions
should become more
accurate.
But that's not done
with climate models !
Climate models
have been making
the same mistake,
in the same direction,
for 50 years running.
Those are not
random errors
-- there's obvious bias
to grossly exaggerate
global warming !
Models that suggest
runaway temperature
increases, are the
models that allow
policymakers
to demand ever-more
stringent policies
to reduce CO2
accumulation.
Politicians get
a "coming crisis"
they can 'fight'.
It's not real, but that
does not matter if
enough people believe
a climate crisis is coming.
Scientists who make
the "right" predictions,
get government grants
and salaries, along with
permanent job security.
Most climate scientists
depend on federal or
state government
funding.
The problem is NOT
in our computers,
but with leftist politicians,
who pay for climate
predictions that
scare people, and
then use an imaginary
coming climate crisis
to control the scared
people !
Remember when
cigarette companies
used to pay for
the "science" they
wanted to "prove"
cigarettes were safe ?
If the leftist politicians
wanted to have accurate
climate predictions,
they would reward
government bureaucrat
scientists for making
accurate predictions.
And the mass media would
publish articles about how
accurate the predictions
were, rather than ignoring
the fact that past predictions
consistently over-predicted
global warming by 2x to 3x !