Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC

Här kommer ytterligare en artikel av Vincent Gray som påvisar hur ovetenskapliga och oseriösa dessa klimatmodeller är. Det är alltså detta charlataneri som utgör grunde för Global Warming Hysterin. Vars förespråkare avgudar dessa ”modeller” och på vars altare våra politiker är bereda att offra vårt välstånd och ekonomiska utveckling.

Se även några av mina inlägg om IPCC: IPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are kept!The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?IPCC and its bias!Peer Review – What it actually meansIPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!,  But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!,

Och om klimatmodeller: Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate ForecastsTropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate ModelsBasic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkHey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me ThisThe Sloppy Science of Global Warming!IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.  ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONSHas the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelledWhy multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric TemperaturesScientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesMera om Klimat modellernas falsariumKlimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!

Några citat:

”The first United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report had a Chapter headed ”Validation of Climate Models”. A similar Chapter occurred in the first draft of the Second Report. I commented that since no climate model has ever been validated, the word was inappropriate. The next draft had changed the Title, and the words ”Validated” or ”Validation” to ”Evaluated” or ”Evaluation” fifty times. Since then the word ”validation” is never used, only ”evaluate”.

No IPCC document has even discussed what measures might be required before a computer model of the climate might be ”validated”

”Validation” is a term used by computer engineers to describe the process of testing of a computer model before it can be made use of. It has to include a capacity to forecast future behaviour to satisfactory level of accuracy. Since no such procedure has ever been carried out for any climate model they are not only completely unsuitable for future forecasts, but the level of accuracy of any such forecast is unknown. As a result they are unable to place levels of reliability on any of the models, or on any ”projection’ resulting from them..

The Glossary to the IPCC 4th Report does not contain a mention of either ”validation” or ”evaluation’, but it is plain in the text that ”evaluation” includes ”attribution” which derives a cause/effect relationship from a ”correlation” contrary to the demands of basic logic.”

”The use of the term ”attribution” evades the firm logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, does not prove cause and effect, not even to any level of ”likelihood” or spurious ”probability. Their ”attribution” process consists in downgrading, distorting and even ignoring alternative reasons for a correlation in order to claim that their explanation had been proved.

The IPCC admit that none of there models have been properly validated, because they refuse to use the word ”forecast”, only ”projection”. A ”projection” is merely the consequence of the initial assumptions and it has no value as a forecast unless it has been tested against future climate behaviour.”

”These definitions confuse the separate role played by the models and the scenarios. The models merely ”project” the rate at which ”radiative forcing” increases with increase in greenhouse gases. They cannot be used to ”project” what might happen in the future without ”scenarios” which are guesses of the future economic development of the world, from which future emissions of greenhouse gases may be deduced. Then, they have to use anothert set of unvalidated models to calculate how much of these emissions might end up in the atmosphere, so the climate models can calculate the radiative forcing, and from that the temperature increase.

The resulting ”range” of temperature and other properties for the year 2100 is therefore completely arbitrary; so the actual levels are decided by the demands of the politicians. The ”Low” figure could easily be negative, but oh no! it has to be just a bit high. The ”HIgh” figure is what the market will bear currently and it has therefore changed over the years. There have been several occasions in my experience of the IPCC when it had to be suddenly raised, doubtless after a call from the politicians. They used such devices as inventing an extra severe scenario (A1F1) or an extra severe model to do this.”

”These scenarios have not been developed by scientists, but by environmental activist economists attached to the IPCC WGIII (Impacts) Committee, and they are generally grossly exaggerated. Even the figures chosen for the beginning (2000) are all wrong; so they are even unable to predict the past.

The scenarios have been roundly criticised by expert economists. without response. They include such outrageous assumptions as:

1. a 12-fold increase in coal consumption,

2. increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 1% a year, instead of the current 0.4%,

3. increases in atmospheric methane, instead of the current fall,

4. absurd increases in Gross National Product, and population,

They were foisted on the scientists of the IPCC Committee WGI (Science) without consultation, so that the future can be confidently exaggerated by them.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003165.html

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

 

June 15, 2008

Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC: A Note from Vincent Gray

Posted by jennifer, at 07:18 PM

The first United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report had a Chapter headed ”Validation of Climate Models”. A similar Chapter occurred in the first draft of the Second Report. I commented that since no climate model has ever been validated, the word was inappropriate. The next draft had changed the Title, and the words ”Validated” or ”Validation” to ”Evaluated” or ”Evaluation” fifty times. Since then the word ”validation” is never used, only ”evaluate”.

No IPCC document has even discussed what measures might be required before a computer model of the climate might be ”validated”

”Validation” is a term used by computer engineers to describe the process of testing of a computer model before it can be made use of. It has to include a capacity to forecast future behaviour to satisfactory level of accuracy. Since no such procedure has ever been carried out for any climate model they are not only completely unsuitable for future forecasts, but the level of accuracy of any such forecast is unknown. As a result they are unable to place levels of reliability on any of the models, or on any ”projection’ resulting from them..

The Glossary to the IPCC 4th Report does not contain a mention of either ”validation” or ”evaluation’, but it is plain in the text that ”evaluation” includes ”attribution” which derives a cause/effect relationship from a ”correlation” contrary to the demands of basic logic.

From the Glossary on ”Detection and Attribution”:

”Detection and attribution Climate varies continually on all time scales. Detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Attribution of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence.”

The use of the term ”attribution” evades the firm logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, does not prove cause and effect, not even to any level of ”likelihood” or spurious ”probability. Their ”attribution” process consists in downgrading, distorting and even ignoring alternative reasons for a correlation in order to claim that their explanation had been proved.

The IPCC admit that none of there models have been properly validated, because they refuse to use the word ”forecast”, only ”projection”. A ”projection” is merely the consequence of the initial assumptions and it has no value as a forecast unless it has been tested against future climate behaviour.

This is what the Glossary says:

”Climate prediction A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce an estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, for example, at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. Since the future evolution of the climate system may be highly sensitive to initial conditions, such predictions are usually probabilistic in nature. See also Climate projection; Climate scenario; Predictability.

Climate projection A projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.

Predictability The extent to which future states of a system may be predicted based on knowledge of current and past states of the system. Since knowledge of the climate system’s past and current states is generally imperfect, as are the models that utilise this knowledge to produce a climate prediction, and since the climate system is inherently nonlinear and chaotic, predictability of the climate system is inherently limited. Even with arbitrarily accurate models and observations, there may still be limits to the predictability of such a nonlinear system (AMS, 2000)”

These definitions confuse the separate role played by the models and the scenarios. The models merely ”project” the rate at which ”radiative forcing” increases with increase in greenhouse gases. They cannot be used to ”project” what might happen in the future without ”scenarios” which are guesses of the future economic development of the world, from which future emissions of greenhouse gases may be deduced. Then, they have to use anothert set of unvalidated models to calculate how much of these emissions might end up in the atmosphere, so the climate models can calculate the radiative forcing, and from that the temperature increase.

The resulting ”range” of temperature and other properties for the year 2100 is therefore completely arbitrary; so the actual levels are decided by the demands of the politicians. The ”Low” figure could easily be negative, but oh no! it has to be just a bit high. The ”HIgh” figure is what the market will bear currently and it has therefore changed over the years. There have been several occasions in my experience of the IPCC when it had to be suddenly raised, doubtless after a call from the politicians. They used such devices as inventing an extra severe scenario (A1F1) or an extra severe model to do this.

The ”High figure is the most important as it is the one used by the Al Gores and Nicholas Sterns of this world to scare us into escalating economic disaster

Since none of the curves have a known or calculable level of accuracy the range could be indefinitely extended in both the upwards and downwards directions. The IPCC actually say this; but, of course, only for the upward direction

Here is what the Glossary says about the Scenarios:

”Climate scenario A plausible and often simplified representation of the future climate, based on an internally consistent set of climatological relationships that has been constructed for explicit use in investigating the potential consequences of anthropogenic climate change, often serving as input to impact models. Climate projections often serve as the raw material for constructing climate scenarios, but climate scenarios usually require additional information such as about the observed current climate. A climate change scenario is the difference between a climate scenario and the current climate.”

These scenarios have not been developed by scientists, but by environmental activist economists attached to the IPCC WGIII (Impacts) Committee, and they are generally grossly exaggerated. Even the figures chosen for the beginning (2000) are all wrong; so they are even unable to predict the past.

The scenarios have been roundly criticised by expert economists. without response. They include such outrageous assumptions as:

1. a 12-fold increase in coal consumption,

2. increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 1% a year, instead of the current 0.4%,

3. increases in atmospheric methane, instead of the current fall,

4. absurd increases in Gross National Product, and population,

They were foisted on the scientists of the IPCC Committee WGI (Science) without consultation, so that the future can be confidently exaggerated by them.

Cheers

Vincent Gray

Wellington, New Zealand

 

Annonser

Etiketter: ,

5 svar to “Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC”

  1. A Climate of Belief – The Story of Climate models! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC,  Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?,  Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate Forecasts,  Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models,  Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New York,  Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This,  The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!,  IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!,  But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!,  There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.  ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled,  Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!,  Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!,  Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric Temperatures,  Scientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’,  Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming “theories” are correct!,  Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series,  Mera om Klimat modellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%! […]

  2. The IPCC must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Alarmism ‘Can Corrupt Anybody’,  Enron – The BIG Sponsor of Global Warming Hysteria!,  Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC,  Carbon and Kyoto zombies attack our economy and is a campaign for austerity!,  Greens thwart […]

  3. No climate model had ever been validated! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?,  Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC,  Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?,  Honest Statement Of Current […]

  4. JasonkdRider Says:

    Awesome blog thank you!

  5. Motorcycle Fairing Says:

    Good Afternoon

    Great share, thanks for your time

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: