Climate change is changing

Science sans politics should be self-correcting.  However, in our real world of eternal conflict, scientists have a difficult time rising to the level of self-correction without anger or shame.  When we deal with Marxists as a class, further rigidities enter into consideration.  They treat everything, including science, as a matter of power relations – that is, as a matter of politics.  Therefore, we have a conundrum when leftists are in charge.  How can we get better accuracy in the models that are tuned by people who cannot put aside the need to control everything and everyone?  

Sometimes facts cannot be repressed.  With new insights, things are just more clearly understood.  However, facts are quite fragile and cannot be counted upon to support themselves.  Sometimes a catastrophe can be seen looming on the horizon.  But this presaging of disaster is not guaranteed to bring re-evaluation, either.  Rigidity is part of human nature.  Sometimes things change just because we continue to muddle and tinker.  Here is an example:

Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models

January 21st, 2015 in Earth / Earth Sciences

A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 °C. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 °C warming instead - and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.

The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models:

Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN's climate panel predicted with "substantial confidence" that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.

The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC's 1990 First Assessment Report, compared with the mean anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue straight line) of three terrestrial and two satellite monthly global mean temperature datasets since 1990.  The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4° C per century, is about half the IPCC's central prediction in 1990….

 

Christopher Monckton, Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs. Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Science Bulletin, 2015, 60(1): 122-135. www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstra… bstract509579.shtml#

For those who wish to follow-up this partial citation, please see here: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter.

My guess is that the science referenced here will be insufficient to change the direction of our politicians.  There is simply too much money, fame, and smugness to be lost by turning round and trudging back up the mountain.  Shame is such a downer!

Science sans politics should be self-correcting.  However, in our real world of eternal conflict, scientists have a difficult time rising to the level of self-correction without anger or shame.  When we deal with Marxists as a class, further rigidities enter into consideration.  They treat everything, including science, as a matter of power relations – that is, as a matter of politics.  Therefore, we have a conundrum when leftists are in charge.  How can we get better accuracy in the models that are tuned by people who cannot put aside the need to control everything and everyone?  

Sometimes facts cannot be repressed.  With new insights, things are just more clearly understood.  However, facts are quite fragile and cannot be counted upon to support themselves.  Sometimes a catastrophe can be seen looming on the horizon.  But this presaging of disaster is not guaranteed to bring re-evaluation, either.  Rigidity is part of human nature.  Sometimes things change just because we continue to muddle and tinker.  Here is an example:

Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models

January 21st, 2015 in Earth / Earth Sciences

A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 °C. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 °C warming instead - and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.

The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models:

Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN's climate panel predicted with "substantial confidence" that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.

The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC's 1990 First Assessment Report, compared with the mean anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue straight line) of three terrestrial and two satellite monthly global mean temperature datasets since 1990.  The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4° C per century, is about half the IPCC's central prediction in 1990….

 

Christopher Monckton, Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs. Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Science Bulletin, 2015, 60(1): 122-135. www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstra… bstract509579.shtml#

For those who wish to follow-up this partial citation, please see here: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter.

My guess is that the science referenced here will be insufficient to change the direction of our politicians.  There is simply too much money, fame, and smugness to be lost by turning round and trudging back up the mountain.  Shame is such a downer!