These Go To Eleven

Those who know me may find it troubling, perhaps even indicative of a breakdown, that I would point intelligent people to a Newsweek article. But bear with me. Here’s the article in question:

https://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-models-right-global-warming-1475660

The headline and the conclusions drawn in this piece are typical Newsweek anti-fact, in this case by omission, a common-enough practice of NW that no one should be surprised.

But the Newsweek writer let some actual, useful, pertinent detail slip through in the article. This was probably an accident, but there it is.

In describing the predictive failure of the climate models produce by NASA’s James Henson, the article notes:

Predicting what will happen in the future is tricky because there are many unknowns to factor in—and several directions we as a global society might chose to take. To be accurate, models not only rely on solid physics, but on precise forecasting when it comes to levels of future emissions.

That is where James Hansen’s 1988 models for NASA went wrong. The forecasts were inaccurate because his predictions on future emissions did not account for the Montreal Protocol, which came into effect a year later. This meant his predictions for future warming were also wrong.

When the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Greta Thunberg, et al sound their alarms, predicting the end of the world as we know it, they are wrong because they are missing this vitally important truth: math- and physics-based models can only be accurate when math and/or physics elements are the only variables applicable to the predictions they make. When applied to climate and human activity’s impact on it, this is never the case.

The models do not (and can not be reasonable expected to) account for improvements through technical innovation, existing environmental programs (like the components of the Montreal Protocol cited in the article, which were being put in place regardless of the agreements reached in Montreal), and the like. So the models are used to produce a number of predictions, based on variable values simulating what might happen when it comes to emissions, reflectivity, solar activity, etc.

But when they are reported, we typically see in the media only the prediction(s) with the worst outcomes, rendering the reports as extremely likely to be wrong.

So what’s the solution for the Doomsday Prophets like AOC and the young, frightfully misled Miss Thunberg?

Education, research, and thoughtfulness.

I’ll give Greta a break here; she is just too young to understand how she is being used by the adults who promote her for their own purposes.

Not so much AOC and like-minded adults. Those who promote ridiculous scenarios in order to promote themselves serve only to inflict damage to the credibility of the real science, and prevent the public from being informed about the true usefulness of the better predictive models.