The alarmist science community lives on studies that claim to find that “It’s worse than we thought” and two beauties have just come out. It is all just computer games but the green press loves it.
The first study melts a new bunch of the Antarctic ice sheet. They do it the same way you would get a bigger boom in a video game, which is simply add some new equations to the computer model. These new “mechanisms,” as the equations are euphemistically called, do not change nature but they sure change the melting in the computer.
For example, we are now told that Louisiana will get over seven feet of sea level rise by the end of this century, a mere 82 years from now. Good by New Orleans, we will miss you. The world as a whole gets over a foot by 2050, just 32 years from now. Moreover, there is nothing we can do now to stop this global rise. Clearly it’s worse than we thought!
Plus they do not stop there. Instead they run the model out a full 300 years, because Antarctica is kind of slow to melt. I am not making this up. They are telling us what the Antarctic climate will be like 300 years from now. As science this is just junk, but it is great alarmism. It is no surprise that the National Science Foundation paid for this stuff.
Of course the hyper-alarmist Climate Central loves this study, in part because they did some of it, saying “Antarctic ice sheet models double the sea-level rise expected this century if global emissions of heat-trapping pollution remain high, according to a new study led by Dr. Robert Kopp of Rutgers University and co-authored by scientists at Climate Central.”
That CO2 does not trap heat and is not pollution is irrelevant to these folks. Anytime someone refers to CO2 emissions as “pollution,” you know they are an alarmist. Atmospheric CO2 is actually the global food supply. That adding a few equations to a model doubles the predicted sea level rise tells us a lot about models, but nothing about Antarctica or sea level.
The second study is just about models, but it too makes big alarmist claims. Here is how it works. To begin with the UN IPCC draws on about 100 government run climate models around the world. No two models agree so they average them all together to get their alarmist predictions. Some people think that these averages are not hot enough so they are looking for ways to juice it up.
The new study does just that. It starts by finding what it calls the best models, which simply means those that come closest to matching the historical records of several climate parameters. It then assumes, on no real basis, that these models are the best when it comes to predicting global temperatures 100 years from now.
It turns out that these “best” models collectively make hotter predictions than the average of all the models, so there you are. It’s worse than we thought (again).
That none of the models are any good is irrelevant to these folks. After all, alarmism is based entirely on computer models, so what the models say, goes. This study is out of Stanford, which may well be the science capital of the alarmist world.
Ironically a skeptical scientist has used the same method, but with more precision, and got the opposite result. It just depends on how big the “best” pile is. His report is presented here, on Judith Curry’s great Climate Etc. blog, along with considerable discussion. This is the climate change debate in action.
As these two studies suggest, alarmist science is models all the way down. I have a little study showing that there is more computer modeling in climate science than in all of the rest of science put together. There is very little actual science here, just endless computer games. And it is always worse than we thought.