And we are told this is “science”

Early in my career, I did a lot of mathematical modeling.  You know, making computer simulations of various things.  It is big in the chemical industry, where the models form the basis of plant design.

The commercial packages for plant design that were born in the 1970s (when I was an undergraduate) were based upon solid knowledge of complex thermodynamics, and the underlying thermodynamic models (equations of state) were always tweaked to get that last 0.01% accuracy.  Because you could never be too accurate.  Or precise.  And because of that, the equations of state were checked against real data that was painstakingly collected and validated.

I was fascinated by the math and the computer algorithms.  I naïvely believed that if you could find the right equation and the right computer algorithm, you could describe the world.  Then Messrs. Navier and Stokes proved me wrong.  Because the world is not linear.  A lot of it is, but only in small discrete regions.

But we are told that AGW is a crisis based on computer simulations.  But the models do not come close to describing reality.  Because of the non-linearities inherent in the natural world.

And some folks are finally admitting it:

ipcc-models-predict-future

Baby

it’s cold outside.  And I mean frigid.  I have been in buffalo, NY this week, and on Monday, 16 Feb 2015, the temperature at the house was -12 F (around -24 C) when I finally dragged myself downstairs for breakfast.  The high for the day was a relatively balmy -4 F (about -20 C).  This winter has been the coldest since 1934, according to the NWS.

Last year, I posted something on the Great Lakes ice.  This year will be worse, according to this (as of 17 Feb 2015):

GLice2015

For comparison:

GLice comp

And people wonder why I am skeptical.