| | | They've been at it for more than 50 years and have no better ability to predict climate now than when they started...
All they are really doing is "trend following"... changing their models over time to make them "predict' a match of the already logged data that exist, as the data change. The models they have are not based on any fundamental understanding of the function... as the announcement re isoprene demonstrates, even in relation to not knowing what the inputs are, or what the correct values for them are... but they are simply trying to mimic actual results, by tinkering with models after the fact, without ever understanding the basic functions driving the changes that occur... so, Rube Goldberg would probably love climate modeling...
They'll deny that's what they're doing, of course, as they've tacked all sorts of technical junk onto the frame of the models they've built... but, the function of a model is defined by the logic of its framework, not by the range of accessories you tack onto it...
That's basically the same thing that stock prediction programs try to do... and, they can do that fairly well, for a while, as long as a trend that has been established continues. But, engineering some mimicry of a trend you are following... can't provide a valid prediction of trend changes. And, that's what they've done with climate, too... predict that a short term warming trend they were following would continue forever... (and get worse, of course, as a requirement in the need for dire consequences being needed to motivate dire action... implementing changes in the economy). But, of course, that's stupid.
And now, the consistent failure they've delivered in prediction relative to actual climate effects... isn't acceptable to them, since they've deliberately built their political movement on it... which imposed the requirement that persistent warming has to be inexorably leading us to environmental disaster. So, the failures require that they're now simply changing the data to make the models match the outputs they demand... no longer even worrying about the models being functional... as much as ensuring the "results" delivered match what they've created as a need for support of the political requirements they've created.
"Global warming"... isn't science... it's always been pseudo-science based in using computers to dupe the stupid with "the computer said it so it must be true". But, now, its become anti-science dressed up as science, then recast in the form of an animist religion, completely divorced from reason, and fully intending to use others misplaced religious faith as a tool in enabling a particular brand of politics... converting the social aspect into "I read it in the main stream media, so it must be true"... which, in terms of fundamental legitimacy and veracity, has recently been edged out by 'I read it on the internet, so it must be true".
Our ability to predict weather is getting better... but, that's also largely because using the same concept in "trend following" is intrinsically more functional in the short term, the closer you are to the initial conditions, and the less any changes in trends are likely to matter in the short term...
The most accurate weather forecasting tool around... is dryday.com. And, the reason it has done as well as it has results from its pairing of model based "predictions" doing trend following... with other inputs slaved to the cycles of the moon, biasing the models with a lunar influence on relative high and low pressure potentials... while layering in typical patterns in seasonal dynamism. In other words... they use the known influence of the sun and the moon on weather... to improve predictions of weather relative to undamped modeling that ignores them. |
|
