Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/27/2010 12:08:24 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
As climate models become increasingly relevant to policy makers, they are being criticized for not undergoing a formal verification and validation (V&V) process analogous to that used in engineering and regulatory applications. Further, claims are being made that climate models have been falsified by failing to predict specific future events.
To date, establishing confidence in climate models has targeted the scientific community that develops and uses the models. As the climate models become increasingly policy relevant, it is critically important to address the public need for high-quality models for decision making and to establish public confidence in these models. An important element in establishing such confidence is to make the models as accessible as possible to the broader public and stakeholder community.
An overview of uncertainties associated with climate models was provided in last week’s post. Why do climate scientists have confidence in climate models? Is their confidence justified? With climate models being increasingly used to provide policy-relevant information, how should we proceed in building public confidence in them?
All models are imperfect; we don’t need a perfect model, just one that serves its purpose. Airplanes are designed using models that are inadequate in their ability to simulate turbulent flow. Financial models based upon crude assumptions about human behavior have been used for decades to manage risk. In the decision making process, models are used more or less depending on a variety of factors, one of which is the credibility of the model. Climate model simulations are being used as the basis for international climate and energy policy, so it is important to assess the adequacy of climate models for this purpose.
Confidence in weather prediction models
Some issues surrounding the culture of establishing confidence in climate models can be illuminated first by considering numerical weather prediction models.
(Excerpt) Read more at judithcurry.com ...
fyi
If they want their science to have any credibility, they need to get the politics out. And building a consensus by intimidation and academic terrorism is not how to go about it.
“As the climate models become increasingly policy relevant, it is critically important to address the public need for high-quality models for decision making and to establish public confidence in these models.”
Translation: We need to do a better job of brainwashing!!
lf an airplane or financial model is flawed, it soon becomes apperent; the plane doesn’t fly or the company loses money. Climate models cannot be. In fact if their proponents get their way, the failure to happen only proves that their prescriptins worked.
With climate models being increasingly used to provide policy-relevant information, how should we proceed in building public confidence in them?”
How about if climate propagandists were to quit omitting, falsefying, and destroying data that doesn’t support their predetermined conclusions.
The whole “climate change” spectacle is the fulfillment of a century of intellectual rot in academia and science. The insanity that was tolerated in the polysci and other mush disciplines has finally spread over to the hard sciences.
Science + (Religion, Politics, or $$$$) does NOT = Science. Its a simple equation really.
“it is critically important to address the public need for high-quality models for decision making and to establish public confidence in these models.”
This is the BS... we do not need “high quality models for decision making”, mainly because we couldn’t change the climate if we wanted to. We should develop the means to deal with what we have to deal with as climate changes, not try to change the climate.
Heck the Farmer’s Almanac has been doing a good job of long term weather prediction for years. Interestingly enough, they use SUNSPOT information in forming their predictions.
I just got the 2011 edition...guess I should open it up.
“claims are being made that climate models have been falsified by failing to predict specific future events”
For example, where are all those devastating hurricanes that Al Gore warned about?
Katrina and Rita were in 2005. According to Al and the “climate science” jokers, we should have had a dozen Katrina-scale events since then. Heck, some of the alarmist “experts” predicted five hurricanes would wreck substantial damage on US coasts in 2006 alone.
Of course, there will be hurricanes in the future, but “climate science” has been a dismal failure in its predictions.
The winter is supposed to be less snowy, but about the same amount of cold in the Northeast. The Northeast, however, is a LARGE area, meteorologically speaking, so it could be snowing like crazy up in the White Mountains of NH, and still be not too unpleasant in Central MA.
Britain freezes on the coldest October night for 17 years as mercury plummets to -6C
Well, that's not going to happen. At Obama's EPA, "the debate is over." Any expense to Americans is justified to avoid the impending disaster that Al Gore and his fellow believers have predicted. No need to verify and validate. It's time to spend trillions of dollars that we don't have, and put us all back in the stone age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.