Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Soothsaying Hot Doomsday Futures

Posted by pwl on July 29, 2010

Soothsaying Hot Doomsday Futures is all the rage.

“Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming. ‘A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record,’ the annual State of the Climate report declares. Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, including Canada, the report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said its analysis of 10 indicators that are ‘clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable.'” – article “Global Warming ‘Undeniable,’ Report Says”

Yikes, start packing for doomsday for the soothsayers are out and about using The Force to intensify propaganda after their self inflicted Climate Gate revelations of their Alarmist Scientist Core Cult members improprieties. Pack light though, it’s going to be a scorcher, allegedly. Hawaii at the North Pole. I really am beginning to wonder if all these alarmist scientists are just rapture christians firing things up for the coming end times? Nostradamus still beats any climate scientist with soothsaying doomsday predictions. Hands down, and he’s been dead a long time. Now how can that be? Let’s explore the science that prevents predictions of complex systems.

It’s not possible to predict the future with crummy or even excellent computer models. Do you really think that a chaotic system such as the weather is going to follow your computer model? Nature followers her own rules and it’s the height of arrogance to think that we can model what is going to happen a 100 years from now. Besides Wolfram proved mathematically that simple systems (which weather and climate systems are) generate their own internal randomness that is impossible to predict, you must watch them unfold on the universal computer known as the objective reality of Nature where we actually exist. Wolfram shows in A New Kind of Science that these systems are highly complex, as complex as any complex system, and that in order to know what they will do next you have to observe them unfold in real time. No two ways around it.

Wolfram also shows that Natural systems are more like cellular automata than linear equations. Any climate scientists that fail to consider these and other facts is simply deluding himself and conning others with his belief stricken delusion that their climate models can be predictive.

At each decision point with a climate model all paths must be taken rather than just one. This leads to a combinatorial explosion of possible futures that are still an infinitesimal subset of all the actually possible futures that Nature could do. Oh, and many members of that infinitesimal subset are not actually possible in Nature since Nature doesn’t follow the binary decisions of a climate scientists computer program. It’s possible that this infinitesimal subset of simulated posisble futures generated by climate computer models actually contains zero elements that are actually possible in the objective reality of Nature.

Oh, and it’s an extraordinary claim that computer climate models can accurately predict the future. It’s up to the authors of these alleged climate models to provide hard evidence, extraordinary evidence, that their computer models in fact can predict anything accurately at all.

There’s about 130 years of climate temperature data. Input the first 100 into any of the climate models and have them predict the next thirty years up to the present. If any of these climate models even come close to producing the same temperature patterns as recorded in the manipulated observed data then they might have a leg to stand on. Having talked with climate modelers directly they refuse to perform this test to validate their alleged climate models. It’s no wonder why, you try to accurately predict the future of the weather and the climate 30 years out. Good luck with that.

As for the rest of it, the bad statistical correlation between CO2 and Temperature is just that, a bad statistical correlation. The Natural Null Hypothesis correlates much better, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) correlates even slightly better.

So while there is a slight upward warming trend with a 60 year sin wave oscillation in the temperature records from 130 years ago to the present coming out of the The Little Ice Age there hasn’t been any change due to the small increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since WWII ~65 years ago. The Natural Null Hypothesis shows no deviation due to CO2 as would have been expected if CO2 impacts the Greenhouse Effect as is claimed by the 100 year old Greenhouse Hypothesis.

Another hypothesis explains what happens to the atmosphere with the increased amounts of the trivial greenhouse gas CO2 (the major greenhouse gas is water with over 80-85% of the greenhouse content). This hypothesis is the Saturated Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis which shows that water will leave the atmosphere to compensate for any increase in other sources of greenhouse gases (CO2, Methane, …) thus forming a limit to how much extra heating the CO2 can cause. Read it and watch the video that explains the hypothesis, also provided are the peer reviewed papers that must be falsified to prove this hypothesis wrong. At least these scientists have the guts to say what needs to be done to falsify their work (it’s a requirement of good science as Richard Feynman points out).

In summary the bad statistical correlation of CO2 to Temperature doesn’t prove causation. The Earth has a slight linear rise in temperatures which follows the PDO oscillations very closely and the warming we’ve seen in the last 130 years is insignificant and almost entirely Natural. The Alarmist AGW Hypothesis has yet to provide the HARD EVIDENCE for their extraordinary claims of soothsaying of doomsday. Oh, and the Earth has been warmer by about 1c to 2.5c a number of times in the past 8,200 years or so, and unless our ancestors were driving SUV’s during the Roman Era or the Medieval Warm Period we aren’t causing this minor amount of warming.

On a personal note having lived in up north in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada during nine very cold winters in the 1970’s with -45c for weeks at a time and -30c or below for months at a time I prefer the warmth. So I spent some time in the tropics of Costa Rica, Hawaii, Thailand, and others, where it’s +30c to +40c or even higher on occasion. That’s a difference of 85c in temperature and I adapted. I’d prefer to have to adapt to an insignificant +1c increase a hundred years from now than freak out about climate predictions that are already off track from Nature by a wide margin. (See graphs in the linked pdf paper).

Question every claim of undeniably even more as that’s an extraordinary claim and as we know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, hard evidence, not just bad statistical correlations. Hard evidence of causation must be presented. Question it even when it is presented. Verify it via experiments.

That’s a summary, there are many more issues. Don’t accept science at face value, question it for the hard verifiable evidence. Keep questioning it till that evidence is provided in a repeatable set of experiments that can be redone by others. When extraordinary claims are made (such as alarmist soothsaying of our doomsday future) demand extraordinary evidence from those scientists making such claims. Demand that all science that impacts the public policy and purse be fully Open Source Science that has all Data Published UNMODIFIED as well as the Manipulations to it FULLY Documented so that the justifications for the modifications can be vetted and audited for rational justifications that make valid sense. Demand that all computer programs, models, and whatnot used be fully Open Sourced as well. Demand Open Source Public Science from your politicians so that the science can be fully audited and verified under the highest standards of the scientific method.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: