There's a rather poorly named site called "the New Scientist" which is out with an article proclaiming that Hurricane Ophelia shows the new future for Europe. For those who missed it, Ophelia was briefly a hurricane before it lost strength the day before it hit Ireland. A hurricane hitting Europe is rare but not unknown. Fifty and even 100 years ago, stronger storms than Ophelia hit the British Isles. Nevertheless, it was an unusual event. In response, The New Scientist announced that global warming would increase the number of storms hitting Europe unless something were done to stop it.
It sounds alarming, right? Europe would suddenly become like Florida getting hit with megastorms each year. Here's the catch: The New Scientist admits that the evidence for its conclusion comes almost entirely from modeling. In other words, there's no real evidence that there will be more or stronger storms hitting Europe other than what a computer simulation predicts. That's a big problem. For the last 20 years, computer models have been predicting various temperature rises and storm levels around the globe. The predictions of the models have turned out to be not just inaccurate, but so far from what actually happened that the models have been shown statistically to be totally erroneous. Let me amplify this a bit. If a computer model predicts that tomorrow will see a high of 72 degrees Farenheit and the actual high comes in at 71, it says nothing about the model. On the other hand, if the model predicts that over the next 20 years the high temperatures will increase by 3 degrees and the actual highs come in with a 1 degree decrease, that shows the model does not work. Simply put, it's wrong. For the last 20 years, the global warming models have been off in this way.
So why is The New Scientist publishing articles relying on models that have been shown to be erroneous? Good question. The answer has to do with the "religion" of global warming. One cannot question global warming models without be a denier. That would be heresy.
On top of this, we have another conundrum with which to deal. At the dawn of the global warming age people like Al Gore told us we would see a great many more hurricanes and severe weather events. Then we went more than twelve years with greatly reduced numbers of such storms. The global warming crowd was so embarrassed that they changed the theory so that it explained that the would actually be fewer such storms due to global warming. Of course, after this year and it high numbers of hurricanes, we are back to more frequent and stronger storms as the result of global warming. If you follow, that means that the global warming believers tell us that more storms come from global warming and fewer storms also come from global warming. In other words, no matter what happens, it's the result of global warming.
It sounds alarming, right? Europe would suddenly become like Florida getting hit with megastorms each year. Here's the catch: The New Scientist admits that the evidence for its conclusion comes almost entirely from modeling. In other words, there's no real evidence that there will be more or stronger storms hitting Europe other than what a computer simulation predicts. That's a big problem. For the last 20 years, computer models have been predicting various temperature rises and storm levels around the globe. The predictions of the models have turned out to be not just inaccurate, but so far from what actually happened that the models have been shown statistically to be totally erroneous. Let me amplify this a bit. If a computer model predicts that tomorrow will see a high of 72 degrees Farenheit and the actual high comes in at 71, it says nothing about the model. On the other hand, if the model predicts that over the next 20 years the high temperatures will increase by 3 degrees and the actual highs come in with a 1 degree decrease, that shows the model does not work. Simply put, it's wrong. For the last 20 years, the global warming models have been off in this way.
So why is The New Scientist publishing articles relying on models that have been shown to be erroneous? Good question. The answer has to do with the "religion" of global warming. One cannot question global warming models without be a denier. That would be heresy.
On top of this, we have another conundrum with which to deal. At the dawn of the global warming age people like Al Gore told us we would see a great many more hurricanes and severe weather events. Then we went more than twelve years with greatly reduced numbers of such storms. The global warming crowd was so embarrassed that they changed the theory so that it explained that the would actually be fewer such storms due to global warming. Of course, after this year and it high numbers of hurricanes, we are back to more frequent and stronger storms as the result of global warming. If you follow, that means that the global warming believers tell us that more storms come from global warming and fewer storms also come from global warming. In other words, no matter what happens, it's the result of global warming.
No comments:
Post a Comment