Monday, September 9, 2019

The Climate Change Hoax is Worse Than You Thought

There's an article on Watts Up With That, featured at the top for some amount of time that stunned me when I read it.  The article is called, "Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II."  Mark I was an article he wrote six years ago and started working to get published in the peer-reviewed science literature; Mark II is the result of six years of revisions.   The author, Pat Frank, is a Ph.D. chemist with the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) in Silicon Valley.  As he puts it, with "30 years of publishing in Chemistry" in his background.

The paper that this is based on can be found here , where it can be downloaded; the Supporting Information (SI) is here (7.4 MB pdf).

It goes without saying you should read the whole thing.  As usual, I'll lift some quotes to get you started.
In my prior experience, climate modelers:
  • did not know to distinguish between accuracy and precision.
  • did not understand that ... a ±15 C temperature uncertainty is not a physical temperature.
  • ...
  • confronted standard error propagation as a foreign concept.
  • did not understand the significance or impact of a calibration experiment.
  • did not understand the concept of instrumental or model resolution or that it has empirical limits
  • did not understand physical error analysis at all.
  • ...
    Climate modelers are evidently not trained in the scientific method. They are not trained to be scientists. They are not scientists. They are apparently not trained to evaluate the physical or predictive reliability of their own models. They do not manifest the attention to physical reasoning demanded by good scientific practice. In my prior experience they are actively hostile to any demonstration of that diagnosis.
    ...
    In short, climate models cannot predict future global air temperatures; not for one year and not for 100 years. Climate model air temperature projections are physically meaningless. They say nothing at all about the impact of CO₂ emissions, if any, on global air temperatures.
    ...
    From the perspective of physical science, it is very reasonable to conclude that any effect of CO₂ emissions is beyond present resolution, and even reasonable to suppose that any possible effect may be so small as to be undetectable within natural variation. Nothing among the present climate observables is in any way unusual.

    The analysis upsets the entire IPCC applecart. It eviscerates the EPA’s endangerment finding, and removes climate alarm from the US 2020 election. There is no evidence whatever that CO₂ emissions have increased, are increasing, will increase, or even can increase, global average surface air temperature.

    The analysis is straight-forward. It could have been done, and should have been done, 30 years ago. But was not.
    ...
    All the anguished adults; all the despairing young people; all the grammar school children frightened to tears and recriminations by lessons about coming doom, and death, and destruction; all the social strife and dislocation. All the blaming, all the character assassinations, all the damaged careers, all the excess winter fuel-poverty deaths, all the men, women, and children continuing to live with indoor smoke, all the enormous sums diverted, all the blighted landscapes, all the chopped and burned birds and the disrupted bats, all the huge monies transferred from the middle class to rich subsidy-farmers.

    All for nothing.
    In a way, author Frank is probably overly optimistic.  Despite evidence of previous papers that should have called a halt to the climate alarmism but were ignored, he's hoping this paper makes a difference.  I hope he's right and some sanity returns to Clown World, but I fear he's not.


    When plots of future temperatures are presented, you usually get what's on the left.  A model showing smoothly increasing measured temperatures.  If the uncertainties are included, errors propagated forward in time, and other standard techniques employed, you get the rescaled plot on the right.  The prediction for the temperature at 2100 isn't that global temperature goes up 4 degrees; it's 4 degrees +22 and -15.  When the uncertainty is 10 times your prediction, your prediction isn't worth much.  Plot from the original article at WUWT.  



    12 comments:

    1. They computer models and weather forecasters can's predict a hurricane's direction 4-5 days out and we are supposed to trust them to tell us the temperature and ocean height in 2100? I think not.

      ReplyDelete
    2. There are too many people, heavily invested in perpetuating the hoax for financial advantage and social advantage (the crisis can generate trillions of dollars for people who service the hoax). I'm sure that it will be completely ignored.

      (and Google released their lock on my comments for the time being - cool)

      ReplyDelete
    3. They falsify the data and their models are incoherent. This has been known for at least a decade. The Left is immune to reality, facts, and logic.

      ReplyDelete
    4. Weather Forecast (or I should say BAD weather forecasts) are a pet peeve of mine. I used to train new forecasters. One of the things I would always impress upon them when their forecast busted was the need to understand why it failed so that they could improve. The first reason for failure was usually a failure to properly analyze the data or to use bad assumptions. Second reason was bad timing or failure to propagate conditions as quickly or as slowly as the real world required. And third but certainly not least, some people are just not cut out to be forecasters and I would counsel that they should explore other career fields, little did I know that they could become the rock star modelers for the Climate Change Scam Artist.

      MSG Grumpy

      ReplyDelete
    5. I recall hearing, maybe two decades ago, that at least one of the climate models had been implemented by a programmer who didn't understand the limitations of finite-precision floating-point arithmetic. Get that little detail wrong, and even a mathematically-correct model will give wild results after enough iterations.
      As I like to say: any model of Earth's climate that has butterfly effects in it is as cockeyed as Trenco's ether.

      ReplyDelete
    6. Governments have used the Big Lie techique forever. Well-known examples include: "social security is safe in a lock box", "the Jewish businessmen are ruining the Fatherland", and "Jesus Christ is the son of God. If you believe in him he will restore you from backup after death to a virtual brain in the cloud. If you were nice you will be running on Linode; if you were naughty, Azure."

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Don't forget the one celled organism that magically came together and gave birth to trees, mosquitoes, elephants, and every other living thing on the planet.

        Delete
      2. As opposed to the magic being that created every living being on the planet ex nihilo? That's more believable?

        Delete
    7. It's not science, it's religion, one based in hating people.

      ReplyDelete
    8. It is still worse than all that. See my piece here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAohiVlCfZ4

      ReplyDelete
    9. "Climate modelers are evidently not trained in the scientific method. They are not trained to be scientists. They are not scientists."

      Although manifestly true, that isn't (and hasn't been) the problem.

      The problem, as I think Frank's analysis makes clear, is that they aren't statisticians. Still, not only every prediction made, but also every piece of alleged "evidence" put forward is, and has always been, statistical garbage.

      Typically, they learn just enough statistics to be dangerous. That is, they know how to use the lingo and perform the calculations, but are not at all concerned with whether they use the right methods or calculations to say anything substantive. Then, to top it of, they routinely "dis"-interpret their "statistical" results to proclaim certainty (an impossibility with statistics).

      Climate-change-ologists are hardly the only group of "registered scienticians" guilty of this; but they are the most egregious violators, the most zealous in trying to cram statistical garbage down others throats, and, therefore, the most dangerous to science, statistics, and society.

      If someone is to blame for the proliferation of the climate hoax it actually isn't even the Climate-Change-ologists themselves. Rather, it is honest and knowledgeable statisticians who have remained silent for 40 years. Had there been even a handful of individuals like Pat Frank, this whole farce could have been nipped in the bud back in the 1980s, as it should have been.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. That problem (misuse of statistics) is very widespread in science as a whole and especially health studies. It's just a truism that, as the great sage Barbie said, "Math is hard". It's also true (in my experience, of course) that biology students often become biology students because they weren't good at math.

        For a computer modeler to be bad at math is particularly awful, though. Dr. Frank said one of his reviewers railed against his insistence that accuracy and precision aren't the same thing!

        Delete