A quick reminder that, reports in British tabloids notwithstanding, climate model projections agree quite well with observed temperatures.
Princeton Physicist: Climate Models ‘Don’t Work’
Princeton University physicist William Happer is not a fan of models used to predict future manmade global warming, and stars in a new educational video laying out the reasons he believes climate models are faulty.
“And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future,” Happer said in a video produced by PragerU.
In the video, Happer argues that even supercomputers used to predict the weather and forecast future global warming aren’t strong enough to capture the complexity of Earth’s atmosphere, including cloud cover and natural ocean cycles.
“That’s why, over the last 30 years, one climate prediction after another — based on computer models — has been wrong,” Happer said in the video. “They’re wrong because even the most powerful computers can’t solve all the equations needed to accurately describe climate.”
Scientists have increasingly been grappling with reconciling the difference between global climate model projections and real-world temperatures. Scientists skeptical of catastrophic manmade warming often point out that models overestimate warming from greenhouse gases.
Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger found that real-world warming has been on the low end of model predictions for the last six decades, and a more recent study published in the journal Nature Geoscience found a similar trend.
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations,” Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, told The Times in 2017.
But other scientists have been critical of claims that models overestimate warming. The University of California, Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said models only predict about 8 percent more warming than what’s actually happened.
But then again, the strong El Nino warming event that peaked in 2016 did much to bring global average surface temperature “back in line” with climate model predictions.
Satellite temperature readings of the bulk atmosphere also show a mismatch between model predictions and observations. Climate scientist John Christy’s research has shown that models show 2.5 times more warming than has been observed.
“Instead of admitting this, some climate scientists replace the highly complex equations that describe the real-world climate with highly simplified ones—their computer models,” Happer said.
“Discarding the unmanageable details, modelers ‘tune’ their simplified equations with lots of adjustable inputs—numbers that can be changed to produce whatever result the modelers want,” Happer said. “So, if they want to show that the earth’s temperature at the end of the century will be two degrees centigrade higher than it is now, they put in the numbers that produce that result … That’s not science. That’s science fiction.”
Read more at Daily Caller
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Readers,
EVERYONE SHOULD VIEW PROFESSOR HAPPER’S VIDEO!!! Why? Because in little more than 5 minutes he describes the principal features of weather (hence, climate because climate is merely the average of historical weather at a given location on a given day of the year). He points out that weather cannot be understood by the use of computers. He points out that weather is about clouds. Maybe he doesn’t do a good job of explaining that clouds are random factors of weather and therefore the reason computers, no matter how big and fast, can never model weather. Because it is not rational to program computers by using random number generators in order to explain (predict) weather. He points out that 70% of the earth’s surface is ocean. Hence, he concludes (clearly) that weather is totally about water. About the general principles he reviews in about 5 minutes, few should not be stupid enough to debate.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Ever since Linus Pauling academia has maintained a guilty secret:
Phillip Ball (a science journalist) has the temerity to say it like it is: “No one really understands water. It’s embarrassing to admit it, but the stuff that covers two-thirds of our planet is still a mystery. Worse, the more we look, the more the problems accumulate: new techniques probing deeper into the molecular architecture of liquid water are throwing up more puzzles.” Then Ball twists the knife: “This guilty secret has myriad ramifications. Water defines the terrestrial environment. It is central to Earth and atmospheric sciences, to biology and to many technologies. The common assumption that water is well characterized has led to explanatory edifices built on shaky ground. The situation is unsatisfactory intellectually and hazardous in practice.”
Molecular Symmetry is the False Prophet of Water Science
by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Conventional wisdom tells us that the arrangement of atoms in the structure of
the H2O molecule is asymmetric or lopsided. And this asymmetry produces an
electrical gradient that causes the electron clouds on all three of its atoms to
be stretched off-center from their respective nuclei, making it–the H2O
molecule–a dipole. Right?
Follow this link for more:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/kMDan3or-rE
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I do not know how much formal education in chemistry Tim Ball or you have had. I do not even know where he said or wrote what you claim. But I believe one, if one is going to be critical of another’s science, one must advertise their background which they consider qualifies oneself to be a qualified critic of the general knowledge of that science. Chemists and material scientists have produced a lot of products useful to many people of the world on the basis of their understanding of atomic structure via the quantum mechanical theories supplied to them by physicists who were forced by their experiments to develop when classical theories could not explain the result of these experiments involving atoms and other small matter.
Not sure what world you live in that you can claim that chemists in general do not understand water
Have a good day, Jerry..
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: I do not know how much formal education in chemistry Tim Ball or you have had.
JMcG: Well, Jerry, the fact that you failed to address the content of my thinking suggests that education has been wasted on you. And it’s Phillip Ball.
Jerry: I do not even know where he said or wrote what you claim. But I believe one, if one is going to be critical of another’s science, one must advertise their background which they consider qualifies oneself to be a qualified critic of the general knowledge of that science.
JMcG: My arguments stand on their own two feet and, therefore, I have no need to refer to my background or credentials (which are considerable) in order to create a false sense of scientific validity.
Jerry: Chemists and material scientists have produced a lot of products useful
JMcG: Yes, and Ptolemy could predict eclipses but that doesn’t mean that the earth is the center of the universe. (Am I right to assume that you have had zero education in the philosophy of science?)
Jerry: . . to many people of the world on the basis of their understanding of atomic structure via the quantum mechanical theories supplied to them by physicists who were forced by their experiments to develop when classical theories could not explain the result of these experiments involving atoms and other small matter.
JMcG: Blah, blah, blah. Who cares. Address the content of my argument or kindly go away.
Jerry: Not sure what world you live in that you can claim that chemists in general do not understand water
JMcG: Here is a link (see below) to a Phd chemist, Anders Nilsson, formerly of Stanford University, who made the linked video to, essentially, inform the whole world that H2O is poorly understood by the world of science. I think it is fair to say that Dr. Nilsson is better educated than you yourself. So there you go, Jerry, according to the rules that you submitted my assertion wins the argument since, according to you, the person that has the most education determines scientific truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hGqlEpvODw&t=3154s
Public Lecture—Water: The Strangest Liquid
Water, H2O, is familiar to everyone – it shapes our bodies and our planet. But despite its abundance, water has remained a mystery, exhibiting many strange properties that are still not understood. Why does the liquid have an unusually large capacity to store heat? And why is it denser than ice? Now, using the intense X-ray beams from particle accelerators, investigations into water are leading to fundamental discoveries about the structure and arrangement of water molecules. This lecture will elucidate the many mysteries of water and discuss current studies that are revolutionizing the way we see and understand one of the most fundamental substances of life. Lecturer: Prof. Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Tim Ball,
Whoever you may be I apologize for crediting you with something which some Phillip Ball is said to have stated. All I can say is this is not the first mistake I have made. More like 10 to the sixth power.
Have a good day, who ever you may be, Jerry
Reply