How does it align with most
alarming model predictions?
Not exact matches
Certainly insofar as the
alarmed public is concerned, these
model projections are thought of as
predictions.
I think it's a case of taking a wild hypothesis, building a highly speculative
model from it, generating some scary and dramatic
predictions for the media, with the * specific * aim of raising public
alarm and getting some political action.
He argues that the current computer
models which make more
alarming predictions are unreliable, and based on the assumption of large positive «water vapour feedbacks».
• The climate
models on which the climate
alarms are based are of no value for making
predictions.
What your article confirms for me is that the average of a bunch of
model outputs (a questionable procedure in the first place) is dependent for
alarming content on the existence of high - end
predictions from the likes of the Canadian simulator in British Columbia which is the second hottest - running of all
models.
Lindzen's fifth paragraph: «Many of the most
alarming studies rely on long - range
predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate
models, similar to those that can not accurately forecast the weather a week from now.
The IPCC * itself * acknowledges that there has been no such warming now for the last 16 - 17 years; that no dramatic imminent change is seen to that for the next couple of years at least; that the previous spell of 15 years or so was precisely the duration of warming that underlay so much of the evidence cited for its
alarms of the long and terrible global trend if forecast; that not a single
model the IPCC had or has seems to have come even close to predicting what we've now seen; that the IPCC can only suggest possible explanations for all this so logically meaning it can have no reason to believe that whatever is causing it isn't going to continue forever; that more and more studies are coming in attributing global temperatures not to CO2 but instead other things such as solar fluctuations; that a number of
predictions are now coming in that in fact say we are now in for a lengthy period of * cooling.
In Modern Science, triggering, sounding, or endorsing a public
alarm without a theory (a
model whose relevant, non-trivial
predictions have been validated) is unethical.