Perverse Economics of Climate Modeling

realclearmarkets.com ^ | December 21, 2009 | Bill Frezza

[crescen7]

As the dust continues swirling around emails purloined from the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, global warming activists keep insisting that computer climate models predicting disaster represent "settled science." How can that be when climate models aren't science at all?

Laws are science. Models are engineering.

Scientists conduct controlled experiments, collect observable data, and construct testable hypotheses. In this case, they compare and discuss the accuracy of various sets of temperature measurements, ice core drillings, or tree ring observations. The peer review process, when properly administered, helps establish a body of accepted facts that both scientists and engineers can work from.

[crescen7]

This is the best general discussion of what the "climate gate" leaks tell us about the current state of "climate science" that I've seen.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Teacher317]

And now they're coming for our pets, too:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

[traderrob6]

“swirling around emails purloined from the climate research”

Other than in the first sentence the author stated something as fact that is both unproven and speculative.

[faucetman]

Article was too deep and debunking global warming is very simple. It's like disproving an absolute. You only need to find ONE exception.

The Greenland ice cores (actual science)prove that the rise in CO2 started 800 years BEFORE the industrial revolution.

This alone debunks man made global warming.

Actual data shows global cooling over the same period that climate models predicted warming. ACTUAL READINGS, NOT GUESSES shows the exact opposite of what actually happened.

This alone debunks man made global warming.

Climate scientists caught cherry picking data, massaging data to match their agendas, then destroying the original data so others (peers) can't review their work.
If you were right, why would you have to CHEAT?

This alone debunks man made global warming.

Now you don't need to give me a hundred examples of supposed warming proof, just DISPROVE what I just said above. Then we'll talk.

[faucetman]

Actual data shows global cooling over the same period that climate models predicted warming. ACTUAL READINGS, NOT GUESSES shows the exact opposite of ...what was predicted.

sorry

[Leo Carpathian]

Global warming/cooling is the result of Sun's activity. We are getting just about all of the energy/heat from the SUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When SUN winks it gets cooler, when SUN yawns, it gets warmer. There is 11 year sunspot cycle that causes variations and affects the Earth!!!!!!
Claiming humans cause warming/change is like saying that pissing in the ocean will cause global flood!!!!!!
Can't the SCIENTWISTS GET IT?!?!?!
We are lucky to be at the right distance and position from the SUN and thank God for creating us. Now the RATS want to screw everything!!!!
Overthrow the commie machine!!!! Eastern Europeans did it, so can we before is toooo late!!!!

[crescen7]

"Other than in the first sentence the author stated something as fact that is both unproven and speculative."

Curious? What is it about the first line that you consider "unproven" or "speculative"?

Are there not emails? (actually txt files generated from emails)

Were they not "purloined" (ie. taken) from some mail archiving system?

Or perhaps are they not from "the climate research"?

[traderrob6]

Since when does the MSM consider a whistleblower or someone leaking inside info a thief?

“Purloined” is a term that should not be applied untill we find out if this data was stolen or leaked.

[jnsun]

The criteria for a Global Climate Model (GCM) to be at least somewhat credible is not that arcane. It must be able to repeat the oscillations in the Earth's climate over the last say 200 million years (a period over which higher life prospered) starting from a set of initial conditions. Only then will it credibly incorporate all the natural pathways which have previously forced the fluctuation of climate and CO₂ (among thousands of other parameters), the latter of which has been over 400 ppm repeatedly.

To the model (computer) 200 million years is no different computationally than 10 thousand years, thus it is completely bogus, we mean completely bogus, for any model to be limited to the recent few thousand years.

When one comes to realize this, one comes to see how truly biased (or ignorant) those who make AGW claims on the basis of models confined to recent era's are. Conversely if a GCM does indeed reliably repeat the climate and CO₂ fluctuations over the last 200 million years starting from a set of initial conditions, and shows an incongruity associated with recent anthropogenic CO₂, then and only then will it be of concern.

How obvious is it?

Johnny Suntrade, The Suntrade Institute

"the science is in" - Barack Obama