Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Climate change models are bollocks

Via Tom Nelson, this rather technical piece shows how the General Circulation Models (GCMs) are utterly unreliable.

However, the money shot is in the comments section. [Emphasis mine.]
Warwick, Skeptic magazine is going to publish my manuscript assessing the reliability of GCM projections of future global average temperatures in their next issue — I think January or February 2008. In that article, I show that the uncertainty in future global temperatures has been vastly under-reported by the IPCC. In fact, the usual SRES scenario plots of CO2-induced temperature don’t show a physical undertainty at all. It turns out that the reliability of GCM projected future temperatures is zero. And not just for 100-year projections, but for 1-year projections.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you AGW catastrophe loons.

As for the rest of it, we are still being lied to and if we do not continue to remind people that this is the case, the results of the measures that "scientists" and politicians are insisting that we undertake really will be catastrophic.

Unless, of course, you are happy enough to take the unnecessary deaths of millions of the world's poorest people in your stride...

8 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

Global colling is the new global warming.

Chris said...

If you predict that the weather tomorrow is going to be the same as the weather today, then you're right about 60% of the time. I guess you can extrapolate that out to this year's weather and next year's, and last century's to next century's.

We ought to be doing more about flood prevention.

knirirr said...

Though I would agree with much of what you say about the evil watermelons, in this case there is a flaw in your argument. Trenberth is misrepresented in that in the very first quote he acknowledges that these models are useful (to the extent that they are) despite the inevitable inaccuracies that they will have.

Eventually I will have all the model data processed into neat control/transient pairs, at which point you may feel free to look for yourself if you wish (or just read the next paper).

Mark Wadsworth said...

Actually DK, you've forgotten the rules:

1. The 100-year forecasts MUST BE be totally correct, because MMGW is reality (Al Gore says so) and we're all doomed (cont. p94).

2. And of course the 1-year forecasts are often incorrect - that is because of unpredictable climate change - the very fact that the weather turns out different to what they predicted PROVES that MMGW is already affecting the weather. By making it more unpredictable. The models are reliable - it's THE WEATHER THAT'S WRONG!

Doublethink, doncha just love it?

knirirr said...

I was discussing this post over lunch and was asked the following: "Why don't you libertarians suggest some means of mitigating effects of climate change that don't involve authoritarian or top-down statist solutions, rather than simply claiming that it's all a big lie or conspiracy?"

This article may also be of interest.

Devil's Kitchen said...

knirirr,

Libertarians that believe in global warming do, indeed, propose solutions of a kind.

Mr Worstall, for instance, proposes that we follow the IPCC's A1 family of scenarios, i.e. lots of free trade and technology exchange (we libertarians are very into free trade).

Whilst not the lowest carbon-output model, it is the one that makes everyone in the world the richest and thus better able to mitigate the impact of climate change (should it be happening).

Needless to say, Stern did not follow the A1 family in his Review. I have written about this a few times now, I shall try to look them up...

DK

knirirr said...

Thanks - I will have to direct the questioner (who identified himself as a "classical liberal") to Mr. Worstall.

dr cromarty said...

You can rant all you like. WE know the AGW idiots are wrong but they will prove themselves right. How?

If the earth warms and disaster happens, its because we didn't do enough to prevent it.

If the earth doesn't warm and disaster is averted, then its because we all sat up and took notice and stopped using SUVs and they were right all along.

I heard of an obstetrician who used this trick a long time ago. He would predict the sex of a child in the womb (this is before the days of ultrasound) and if it proved correct, the parents were happy. If not he would produce his diary in which he had written the exact opposite of the sex he had told the parents and they would doubt their memories.

He was a liar and so are the ecoloons.