Hubris with a computer model
Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say, but as 20,000-or-so warmists congeal in Paris for their latest round of posturing and room service, it remains difficult to grasp in full the means by which a trace gas has come to prompt so much fear on the part of fools and so many climate dollars for the settled scientists and their hangers-on. In his latest post at the Black Jay blog, physicist John Reid sheds some light:
So the fluid dynamics people, who already used fluid dynamic computer models to make weather forecasts, told everybody they could do the same thing for climate. Obviously, they thought, if you can predict the weather a week ahead, with a bit of tweaking you can predict the climate centuries into the future and so estimate the effect that CO2 will have on the planet.
So what these guys did was to take Laplace’s deterministic world view and code it up for a supercomputer. They took a modelling technique which is ideally suited to predicting the behaviour of machines and celestial bodies and applied it to the fluid processes of an entire planet.
All the computer models predict exponentially rising temperatures but the real world fails to follow suit; exponentially rising temperatures have not been observed. But now so much money and effort have gone into this project that no-one can admit that it is a failure. Instead they desperately clutch at straws while science administrators and science PR people become ever more implausible in their excuses and ever more hysterical in their predictions.
If you look carefully at 135 years of good global average temperature data, it is a random walk … The supposed rising trend is just a random excursion. These apparent trends in random-walk data are well known in Economics. So far this idea has not filtered through to climate science.
Comments are closed.
