NASA researcher Mark Richardson has completed a study which compares historical observations with climate model output, and has concluded that historical observations have to be adjusted, to reconcile them with the climate models.
Who you gonna believe—me, or your lying data?
Who is defining “foolishness”? Is there something untoward about applying modern physics to the findings of science 100 years ago? Why waste time trying to suggest that computer modeling is always irrelevant when we have an urgent need to collaborate as a world to face the erosion of icecaps?
There is no valid case for climate action ‘denialism’ when you look at the fact we are in the first third of the Holocene Interglacial and we are facing several meters rise of sea level until the next 20,000 years hence return to an ice age. The foolishness consists of attempting to make a case for ignoring our duties to our habitat. We have to band together using the 17 SDGs for 2030 to create a united operational plan to do things like maximize use of water on continents, conserve runoff in constructed wetlands, and aggressively organize afforestation in all the barren regions of the planet, once we have achieved a continental water conservation and restoration of water tables policy.
You’re confusing taking care of our ecology with worrying about our climate. Of course we should do the former.
However.
Those models are not capable of simultaneously predicting the past and the present. Their predictions of the future have badly overstated the situation as empirically observed by high altitude balloon soundings and satellite observations for the last 20 years. And those models: their writers won’t submit their code to public view for validation.
Eroding ice caps? So what (leaving aside observational data that show the Antarctic ice cap is being replenished as fast as it’s melting, and the Arctic ice cap is growing)? We’ve had no ice caps before, and what was happening? That warmer environment had much lusher life than now.
Sea rise? Not so much–and that just means coastal livers will need to move “inland” to follow the new coast. Life continues to burgeon.
Applying physics? I wish climate mongers would do that. The physics shows that such global warming as is occurring is due almost entirely to the sun’s warming (which it’s done since it ignited 4.5 billion years ago), orbital mechanics, and the earth’s rotational precession.
Eric Hines