This QOTW is from MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, from his response to critics on the WUWT post: Lindzen on negative climate feedbacks
…it has become standard in climate science that data in contradiction to alarmism is inevitably ‘corrected’ to bring it closer to alarming models. None of us would argue that this data is perfect, and the corrections are often plausible. What is implausible is that the ‘corrections’ should always bring the data closer to models.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Catlin Farce.
They hope that this is a turning point in the weather and Spring is finally here.
Obviously they’re still suffering from hypothermia. Our computer model shows that spring arrived four weeks ago. Some one tell them they are wrong.
Well if you do the arithmetic correctly the model predictions are always correct.
They are correct in the sense that any system, of which the model is a true representation ought to behave like the model; well actually verse vicea; the model should behave like the system that it is a model of.
The problem with “Climate models” or “Global Circulation Models” which is what they really are; is that they are not models of any plent that we know about.
The models only tell you what the elements that you put into the models are going to do in the future. They can tell you nothing about the effects of aspects of the real system which you do not represent in the models.
Since the most ardent GCMers agree they do not correctly account for clouds (and who knows what else), then they clearly are not modles of this planet, nor should they behave like this planet does; since the planet includes every single aspect of its construction.
When the models are models of this planet, then they will behave like this planet does; and we are a long way from having a model of this planet, since the ones we have don’t even properly account for the single most important “green house” component of the atmosphere; namely water (in all three phases it takes in our atmosphere.
Fiddling with trend lines and standard deviations is not going to overcome the lack of a model which doesn’t have an analog of the three phases of water, that are a permanent part of earth’s atmosphere.
George
Re: Chris Wright (02:44:31)
Paul Sheehan, the author of the opinion piece on Ian Plimer’s book, is a senior journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH). The SMH has in my opinion been the leading Australian print MSM vehicle for promoting green policies and propaganda including AGW.
I found his piece to be very brave and a rare display of intellectual honesty from that mob. Professor Plimer’s book must have had a big impact on Mr Sheehan for him to question his orthodoxy. I have ordered the hardback copy this morning online from the publisher http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/
It remains to be seen what sort of response Mr Sheehan will receive from his colleagues, brothers-in-arms and the rabid left-wing letter writers that populate the SMH’s letters page., I don’t think it will be gentle.
Regards
Michael
REPLY: see main page for this article – Anthony
anna v (11:10:39),
I think the links that you are looking askance on were compiled & offered, as examples of and to underscore certain weaknesses of climate-models (and by extension, to suggest a general immaturity of these software-tools).
If you are refering to the ‘ocean acidification’ collection, I find this material interesting & important, because it casts a very large cloud over the assumption that ocean-habitat contributions in the model-algorithms are solidly based and reliable. I think in fact the assumptions made about ocean habitat in the models are essentially a shot in the dark … and the ocean acidification investigations underscore the uncertainties all across the marine domain.
Likewise, I (and others) discussed the changes in relative plant respiration (botanical CO2 emissions, which are huge) with varying atmospheric CO2 levels, because the models again make assumptions about what this value is … assumptions which ongoing research, fraught with qualifiers like “may” and “might”, serves to put on dubious footing.
I am citing these materials, to show there is too much uncertainty in central elements of the climate models for the results obtained from them to be taken as anything resembling conclusive.
I apologize that the discussion-train became opaque. Where I think it started getting confusing is in the replies to Smokey (18:50:58). He/she asked for certain ‘negative evidence’, and I replied on basically another track … showing where I think climate models are making improper (formal) assumptions.
Hope this helps. 😉
Ted
MartinGAtkins (10:44:49):
From the article you suggested:
On the other hand, when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is low, those plants release the CO2 fixed in malate through decarboxylation in the perivascular bundle sheet cells.
The study is complex. At no time did I or the study suggest that that terrestrial plant life behaved like rocks.
I will read the paper at more in more detail in the morning. Meanwhile it is only an interesting subject for study.
MartinGAtkins (14:35:12):
The study is complex. At no time did I or the study suggest that that terrestrial plant life behaved like rocks.
I apologize for that out of context phrase, it was not bowed to your post or to something you would have said. Sorry, Martin.
Before this thread gets too long in the tooth, I would like to congratulate boudu for that fantastic “Question of the week” image/logo!
Ted Clayton (14:32:25) :
anna v (11:10:39),
I think the links that you are looking askance on were compiled & offered, as examples of and to underscore certain weaknesses of climate-models (and by extension, to suggest a general immaturity of these software-tools).
If you are refering to the ‘ocean acidification’ collection, I find this material interesting & important, because it casts a very large cloud over the assumption that ocean-habitat contributions in the model-algorithms are solidly based and reliable.
You should have said so. People cannot guess intentions, particularly on the net, and few people will go to the trouble of checking through a long list of links. It sounded like a big offer for the defense of OA ( Aside, that is Olympic Airways usually, :))
Hope this helps. 😉 ,/i>
sure does, thanks
Ted