“Flawed Computer Models”… Sound Familiar?
As the president and his congress prepare to impose costly regulations on businesses and us, remember what they (in part) are basing their climate change reasoning on.
Flawed computer models may have exaggerated the effects of an Icelandic volcano eruption that has grounded tens of thousands of flights, stranded hundreds of thousands of passengers and cost businesses hundreds of millions of euros.
The computer models that guided decisions to impose a no-fly zone across most of Europe in recent days are based on incomplete science and limited data, according to European officials. As a result, they may have over-stated the risks to the public, needlessly grounding flights and damaging businesses.
Hmmm. “… incomplete science”, “limited data”, “over-stated”.
Seems like we’ve heard this before but some people just won’t listen.
April 20th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
kind of like to the facts, when we say to actually disgusting and disturbing things, they say “la la la la la la la”
April 20th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Hmmmm, as a pilot, I’ve been wondering what they based their decisions on and was baffled by all the flight cancellations. Jet engines are built to withstand objects much bigger and more dangerous than ash. In addition, there are filters that clean the air allowed into the cabin so unless they were planning on flying directly into the center of the ash cloud and for prolonged periods I can’t understand what the concerns were. In addition, the normal routes could be adjusted to fly farther south…they just fly over Iceland in order to have some place to land in the event of an emergency (in addition to it being the shortest route). It’s nice to now know that they based their decisions on computer models…clears up my confusion. The fact that the computer models were flawed does not surprise me since the whole AGW scam is based on flawed computer models.
April 20th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Has anyone done a comparison to the 1981 Mt. St. Helens event?
April 20th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
GIGO – the models are only as accurate as the people programming them – if they don’t understand the problem and HOW to solve it (the methodology involved), THE MODELS WILL BE SO MUCH GARBAGE. As we can see, they are far from accurate, hence the confusion.
Also, when you diddle with the data to get results you wish you could get, the same output occurs – garbage.
Add that to a blind faith in the people creating the models themselves, and you get an unhealthy reliance on one or two sources of information. Please remember, data is unprocessed information. What you do with data is useful, but the data itself just lies there… “There are lies, damned lies, and Statistics” – Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
Seems to me that “Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to doooooo…”
Heh.
Igor
April 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I called this a week ago.
But, it was an easy call to make.
These days, anything and everything represents chance for the Its the End of the World As We Know It!™ crowd.
“Never waste a good crisis”…
April 21st, 2010 at 11:01 am
flawed volcano models are literally from the same guys who do the climate modeling for the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
from the financial times “ban led by flawed computer models”
(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c05510c-4c13-11df-a217-00144feab49a.html):
Decisions in the past week have been guided by computer models used by the London Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre based at the Met Office…
from the Met Office website (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html?zoneid=79048):
Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia maintain the global climate record for the WMO
from ipcc website (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm)
The IPCC is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the UN and the WMO to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.