Maggie's Farm

The warning signs for the climate models have always been there. You'd think if a 'scientist' came up with a model showing climate catastrophe in 20-30-50 years they'd put the code and data sets they used out and say "Hey, show me I'm wrong, show me what I missed, show me where I've inverted a value, because this has me worried as all hell and I'd like it to be wrong."

But no - the original black-box models were proprietary, Michael Mann didn't want them or the data sets released because "They just wanted to poke holes in them."

Excuse me, but I thought that was what the whole point of publication was - get your conclusions, supported by data, with your methodology listed clearly into print and let people SEE how you did it all.

And it was never properly vetted because the climate alarmists who latched onto this shouted down any attempts to try, because "There was no time! Something had to be done! The Science Is Settled!" And it's funny how, if CO2 was so bad, they didn't focus on nuclear power...

It's funny (in the 'you know, that's flippin' odd' sense) that as the models have been shown to be in error, as the predictions for worse hurricanes and tornadoes have failed, as the predictions for melting ice caps have failed, as the solar and wind remedies prove to be ineffective when most needed, the people pushing catastrophic remedies for 'climate change' are getting more and more strident and pushing even more catastrophic fixes.

They say it's about saving the planet. I think they see us 'peasants' as an infestation that needs to be cleared out so the planet's for their exclusive use.

Z-boy - the prediction was that the northern ice cap would be GONE. Good old Al Gore said in 2009

“Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

Maslowski basically said "WTF you talkin' bout, Al?" But that didn't get nearly the press coverage.

"In his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (here) he also said: "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”

If you can't believe Al Gore on this, who can you trust?

BTW, per your link the lowest sea ice extent was in 2012 at 3.39 million square km. Since then the curve's gone back up, and flattened around the 4.6-4.7 million square km mark for the last 4 out of 5 years. (2020 was 3.82 million.)

We'll see if it increases over the next decade or so.

Know what they call a computer model of aeronautical stresses that doesn't put out reliable numbers?

Nothing. It gets deleted because it'll kill people if it's used.

Computer models must be carefully vetted and compared to real-world results before they're trusted.

If 97% of the models are wrong - what does that tell you about the assumptions behind them?

"The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions. But the models predicted that there would be much greater warming between 1998 and 2014 than actually happened. If the models were doing a good job, their predictions would cluster symmetrically around the actual measured temperatures. That was not the case here; a mere 2.4 percent of the predictions undershot actual temperatures and 97.6 percent overshot, according to Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels, former MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Cato Institute climate researcher Chip Knappenberger. Climate models as a group have been “running hot,” predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014. Of course, this doesn’t mean that no warming is occurring, but, rather, that the models’ forecasts were exaggerated."

"Vancouver, British Columbia, warmed by a full degree in the first 20 years of the 20th century, then cooled by two degrees over the next 40 years, and then warmed to the end the century, ending almost where it started. None of the six climate models tested by the IPCC reproduced this pattern. Further, according to scientist Patrick Frank in a 2015 article in Energy & Environment, the projected temperature trends of the models, which all employed the same theories and historical data, were as far apart as 2.5˚C."

If the model doesn't fit reality, can it forecast accurately? Or would you be better off with a random number generator spitting out values between .01 and 2.5?

[url] https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models [/url]