There is a 98% consensus among scientists that the planet is warming and that humans are causing it. - paraphrase. The only consensus I understand is when measurements agree within errors or when theoretical predictions agree within errors because all knowledge is limited by the errors of the data used. In a quantum electrodynamics calculation of the Lamb shift, for example, the prediction agrees with the measurements within 1 standard deviation and the measurements are accurate to 1 part in 10 billion. When IPCC publishes the results of the many models of global climate science out there they have to give all the graphs in the report because they have no idea who is right and the various graphs differ by as much as a factor of five. Almost every group has its own model. Consensus? I dont think so. And it is even more appalling to think that they omit a number of obvious basic physics phenomena like cosmic rays because it would be too much trouble and they think its small anyway. However, they do think they know how many floods, droughts, tornados, and hurricanes there are going to be and how violent they will be even if their models dont even address about those subjects. A computer like the Petascale computer (once the fastest in the world) at the University of Illinois where I spend some time runs a typical model for 1 month and still cant resolve thunderstorms which is are some of the most forceful weather drivers in the system. The problem is hard, but that doesnt mean they are getting it right. The real data is that the arbitrarily defined global mean temperature is< .4 degrees (right now .2 degrees) Celsius above the average for the last 150 years or so. All other calamitous predictions rely on those wonderfully unreliable models we just talked about. Give me some money and Ill chose a model that will agree with any level you want, yellow, orange, or red.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 00:25:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015