This site, http://climateinteractive.org/, a supposed climate simulator, was developed in order to help those of us who cannot possibly understand their complex climate models as a way of showing the threat due to AGW.
John Sterman, one of the authors, put it this way in the TV show The Agenda:
“The strong scientific consensus about the causes and risks of climate change stands in stark contrast to widespread confusion and complacency among the public. Science is clearly not the bottleneck to action. Many people believe we can “wait and see” whether climate change will turn out to be very harmful to human welfare, and, if so, then take action. Wait and see works well in simple systems, with short time delays. But the climate is a complex dynamic system with multiple feedback processes, accumulations, nonlinearities and very long time delays. If climate change turns out to cause serious damage to our welfare, it will be too late to take action. The only way people can explore the dynamics of such large, complex systems is through simulations. Existing large-scale climate models, as wonderful as they are, weren’t designed to facilitate learning among policymakers and the public, to whom they are black boxes. And the cycle time for running simulations is too long to be useful in the fast-paced world of negotiations and policy, or in a sound-bite world of channel surfing and short attention spans. The C-ROADS climate policy model we developed runs essentially instantly, so people get immediate feedback on the consequences of their assumptions and can try many experiments in a short time.”
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Climate models are very complex and take a long time to churn out a scenario, which is too long and complex for the public. So they “dumbed” it down so it runs the same sumulation in an instant? Really?
Give me a break. All they are doing is making the final result even more off from reality, and peddling it as reality. What a fraud.
Let’s have a look at specific examples.
As with all simulations where you get to imput the values, the limits and assumptions can be exposed by putting in extreme numbers and look at the results. So I did just that.
At the bottom of this page http://forio.com/simulation/climate-development/ you can enter a goal of how much CO2 you want as a maximum and see how it affects the graphs. So I picked 7000 ppm (20 times today, as it was 250myo). Nothing happened. No change. So I tried twice, 700. Again, no change. What gives?
So I tried at the bottom range to support plant life, 150ppm. No change after running.
If you go to the Data section, it shows the data generated by each run. All identical even if I choose 450 or 250 for my CO2 targets. Something is definitely not right here.
Sea level rise is one of my favorite AGW items to debunk because the real in situ measured data is clear. the rate since 1900 is 1.74mm/year, with the current TOPEX and Jason satelite data of 3.2 -2.4mm/year since 1998.
This simulation generates the exact same sea level rise outcome regardless of the CO2 I enter.
I copied the data and pasted it into Excel. I wanted to see what the rate of acceleration was they were using. That is, the rate of increase in the rate of increase. To get to the target of 2 meters in 100 years the acceleration of the rate of increase has to be 4% per year.
By 2100 their increase is 896.3mm. Or 0.896 meters. Half the scare level. That means their acceleration has to be around 2%. But it’s not. It’s real weird.
Can someone explain to me the mathematical formula that accelerates the rate of sea level in a saw-tooth manner, then suddenly in 2050, the rate decreases!
This has gotta be bogus data. Well, of course it is because this apparent acceleration doesn’t exist!
This is their data from 2000 to 2010.
With their acceleration in the rate they come to a current rate of 3.88mm/year. One problem. The measured sea level rate from TOPEX and Jason is 2.4mm/year! So reality has shown this site to be a fraud already.
Of course, predictions is not evidence, is not a certainly of what the future will be. Passing this nonsence off as such is also fraud.
Now temperature. This is the graph they present of what the future temperature will be. It barely changes with different CO2. Notice anything missing from this plot?
No error bars!
No degrees of probability. Instead a line of certainty. It is not physically possible to know with that certainty what the future average of the global mean temperature is. Thus omitting the error bars, the uncertainty of the simulation, is a fraud. No one in science omits the error bars, you would fail physics 101 if you did.