Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."
As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...
Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..
A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling
Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.
The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.
As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...
Consensus climate scientists:
1. Think that precision is accuracy
2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model
3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models
4. Do not understand calibration at all
5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations
6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error
7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset
8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty
9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)
10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error
11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature
12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states
Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.
Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..
A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling
Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.
The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.
Last edited: