{"id":356102,"date":"2024-12-20T15:58:54","date_gmt":"2024-12-20T14:58:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=356102"},"modified":"2024-12-20T15:58:57","modified_gmt":"2024-12-20T14:58:57","slug":"blockbuster-honesty-expert-modeler-admits-they-cant-predict-extreme-events-el-nino-tipping-points-rain-or-river-flows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=356102","title":{"rendered":"Blockbuster honesty: Expert modeler admits they can\u2019t predict extreme events, El Nino, tipping points, rain or river flows"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From JoNova<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Jo Nova<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The science is settled, except when they need more money<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Australia\u2019s leading climate modeler wants a big new Climate Agency, and to make the case he admits the current models really can\u2019t predict if rivers will rise or fall, if Antarctica will get bigger or smaller, if sea levels will rise much, or if El Ninos or La Nina will be more common or if the floods of Lismore will occur more often.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To give us some idea of how bad the current models are, he\u2019s recommending we shift from models with 100 kilometer blocks to high resolution models with 1 km cells. These new models will be at least 10,000 times bigger than current ones, and if they increase the vertical slices, they could easily be one hundred thousand or even a million times bigger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And if they get this super model, they\u2019ll need 10,000 to one million times the energy. But now that we\u2019ve wrecked the grid, good luck running those monster data centers off sunlight and breezes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Full credit to Tony Thomas for digging through pages of turgid text and webinars to uncover the truth.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Andy Pitman, November 2024<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Oh Boy it\u2019s an eye-popping list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the past, Pitman has admitted climate change doesn\u2019t necessarily cause more droughts<\/a>. He\u2019s also said he wouldn\u2019t bet his superannuation (pension fund) on the climate models<\/a>. This time Pitman admits the models are low resolution, have a lot of \u201ccritical gaps\u201d, don\u2019t resolve the oceans or clouds well, and that using the best CMIP6 models (the same ones the expert UN has beaten us over the head with) may risk \u201cfundamentally wrong projections<\/strong> of future climate and its variability.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shouldn\u2019t every Australian know this? I mean we\u2019re spending half a trillion dollars to solve \u201cclimate change\u201d but the models might be fundamentally<\/em> wrong?  Doesn\u2019t that matter. The seas might not swamp us, the rivers might keep flowing. Antarctica might not melt?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where was Andy Pitman when Australia was wrecking its grid, destroying jobs and our lifestyles? Where were any of our climate academics when leaders of our political parties were telling us that every drought, fire and storm was caused by climate change and would only get worse?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ivory Tower elitists sat silently by when the government forces bricklayers, farmers and children to solve a climate problem that might be just a modeling error?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And now they want more money \u2014 and I would say we desperately need models that work, but what\u2019s the point, if we can\u2019t trust the modelers to be absolutely, scrupulously honest with us?<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Climate Science You Can Believe<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

By Tony Thomas, Quadrant<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pitman even concedes that current climate models can\u2019t predict whether natural disasters will become more or less common in the warming era. Remember his words when you next hear the ABC or Climate Council claiming that such-and-such storms and floods are \u201cclimate-fuelled\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using current CMIP models, or indeed the regional models that rely on them, therefore risks fundamentally wrong projections<\/strong> of future climate and its variability. \u2014 P17 of \u201cThe Decadal Plan<\/a>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now they tell us? Modelers don\u2019t know if we\u2019ll get more wind droughts or cloudy days?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Right after we built 12,000 megawatts of weather dependent generators, we find out that the modelers have no idea whether we will get more long spells of cloudy windless days which cripple our grid. This new vulnerability is buried under the label \u201cHigh impact weather events\u201d<\/em>. As if windless nights belong in the same category as storms and floods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s hidden in one of the Five Key Questions of National Significance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Where will changes in high impact weather events support and\/or undermine net zero ambition and where can associated risks be managed effectively?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like the rest of the document the language is obtuse, convoluted, and speaks with a forked tongue. They don\u2019t want to come out and just say Australia badly needs models a million times bigger so we can predict the climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tony Thomas sums it up:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

He [Pitman et al] also admits that he and fellow climate alarmists have no idea:<\/p>\n\n\n\n