I’ve been casually studying and reading about this issue for years and believe you’ve presented a very lucid and thoughtful assessment that is very similar to my own observations of this area. I can’t wait to see your take on the East Anglia emails and the (oh so incredibly bad) computer code that was in some of them…
I use and solve the same set of equations (mass, momentum, energy, species) on a much smaller scale (ca. 100 ft) in my work in aerospace. My solutions are much less ad-hoc than what is done for climate models. Yet, I am satisfied when my model results are within 10 degrees F of measured data. Models with domains the size of the earth cannot have uncertainties small enough such that changes on the order 1 deg C are important. The uncertainty of most terrestrial temperature measuring equipment is 3-5 degrees F.
"My point is that science of the climate is incredibly complicated and there is not a single person on this planet who knows to a high degree of certainty what is going on."
I've said this many times in different places but a layperson's only hope of reaching any sort of conclusion on any of a number of complex-system subjects is by deciding who to trust. Even if I can find a (group of) trustworthy "expert"/s to steer my belief, there is so much complexity and uncertainty that a whole dose of scepticism must surely remain.
Perhaps climate TheScience is being revealed to be subject to the same groupthink and corportate-capture that covid TheScience has clearly demonstrated.
Anyhow, censorship and removing opportunities to debate in public is never acceptable. Apologists for that only focus suspicion on the integrity of their (entrenched) opinions.
if a mathematical model was used 50 years ago & predicted today's situation accurately--then it may have some credibility to predict the situation 50 years from now--but that didnt happen. You cant make decisions based on an untested climate model. Consensus science is pseudo-science
I've always avoided getting into ACC for a couple reasons.
First, I don't have to believe in ACC to want to protect the environment. I don't care if ACC is real or not, I still don't want all the forests cleared and oceans polluted. So I don't even see why people have made such a big deal out of ACC.
The second reason I've avoided analyzing ACC is that I intuitively concluded exactly what you have confirmed in this article: it's far too complex and I'll never be certain one way or the other so why waste the hours and hours it would take to even have weak opinion.
So this is my thanks for spending the hours and hours to inform me just enough to have the weak opinion on ACC that I've always wanted. :)
I have worked with models of 'systems', military and aerospace. Before we rely on a predictive model they are wrung through 3 phases of tests: verification, validation and accreditation. The first two are not mutually exclusive and only slightly overlap. Verify is about pertinence, modeling the right question, the second is how reliable the results and third is general/limited repeatable. Few models we abuse get through the first.
Covid 19 has given models as gospel with a level of faith required, I see climate models also require a deep faith.
To a zealot lack of faith is apostasy.....
to logic faith is not a basis of knowledge )(epistemology). Covid and climate zealots are epistemologically challenged.
That said I hope we can get in to the professions of faith in things like wind and solar (and batteries with the environmental wreckage they enforce) and the abject lack of system view around those virtue signals for wrecking the civilization.
You've probably nailed the problem when mentioning adjusting the parameters fed into computer models. As we continue our journey forward in time there seems to be more 'preponderance of presumption' being used more often for climate prediction compared to using actual measurements we have on hand for the past 140 years and not 'adjusting' them to fit the preferred predicted outcome. Lay people and apparently scientists themselves tend forget computers only calculate, they don't predict - people do. Feeding adjusted data into a calculator then tweaking it will invariably lead to dubious conclusions. Thank you for pointing out past computer modelling's consistent failures to predict current times. That seems a difficult lesson for people predicting 100 years into the future to recognize and learn from it.
Nice work. You have a lot of the good stuff here. I was looking into the logarithmic effects of CO2 and found a lot of good info going back several years on this site which is probably already on your radar:
I still don't understant the main concept. If IR are back radiatived by the increase of greenhouse gases from earth. Why solar IR are not more reflected to the space when theese same gases increase ? WHere is this part in the model ? In case of increase of these gases the amount of IR reflected directely to space have to increase . To much greenhouse gases at high concentration necesseraly reflect more energy into space .
It’s strange not seeing “show additional replies” from second class citizens…I’m one
Ok part 1 was pretty much just what I expected. Let’s see if part 2 also matches my opinions.
I’ve been casually studying and reading about this issue for years and believe you’ve presented a very lucid and thoughtful assessment that is very similar to my own observations of this area. I can’t wait to see your take on the East Anglia emails and the (oh so incredibly bad) computer code that was in some of them…
Perhaps unpopular, but I would say Genesis 8:22 gives us insight into whether climate change is something to be concerned with.
"While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease."
From Dr. Alan White:
"It makes perfect sense that the earth would have a temperature control system just like our bodies do, since God designed them both."
More here: https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/should-we-be-concerned-about-climate-change/
Thanks for all your work Gummi. Great as usual!
I use and solve the same set of equations (mass, momentum, energy, species) on a much smaller scale (ca. 100 ft) in my work in aerospace. My solutions are much less ad-hoc than what is done for climate models. Yet, I am satisfied when my model results are within 10 degrees F of measured data. Models with domains the size of the earth cannot have uncertainties small enough such that changes on the order 1 deg C are important. The uncertainty of most terrestrial temperature measuring equipment is 3-5 degrees F.
Great stuff as always, Gummi! Any update on Part 2?
"My point is that science of the climate is incredibly complicated and there is not a single person on this planet who knows to a high degree of certainty what is going on."
I've said this many times in different places but a layperson's only hope of reaching any sort of conclusion on any of a number of complex-system subjects is by deciding who to trust. Even if I can find a (group of) trustworthy "expert"/s to steer my belief, there is so much complexity and uncertainty that a whole dose of scepticism must surely remain.
Perhaps climate TheScience is being revealed to be subject to the same groupthink and corportate-capture that covid TheScience has clearly demonstrated.
Anyhow, censorship and removing opportunities to debate in public is never acceptable. Apologists for that only focus suspicion on the integrity of their (entrenched) opinions.
if a mathematical model was used 50 years ago & predicted today's situation accurately--then it may have some credibility to predict the situation 50 years from now--but that didnt happen. You cant make decisions based on an untested climate model. Consensus science is pseudo-science
A model is a detailed hypothesis. A model is not an experiment.
Thanks, Gummi.
I've always avoided getting into ACC for a couple reasons.
First, I don't have to believe in ACC to want to protect the environment. I don't care if ACC is real or not, I still don't want all the forests cleared and oceans polluted. So I don't even see why people have made such a big deal out of ACC.
The second reason I've avoided analyzing ACC is that I intuitively concluded exactly what you have confirmed in this article: it's far too complex and I'll never be certain one way or the other so why waste the hours and hours it would take to even have weak opinion.
So this is my thanks for spending the hours and hours to inform me just enough to have the weak opinion on ACC that I've always wanted. :)
D
YES GUMMI - sadly so many of our major institutions have bought into the AGW lie, I don't know if it's reversible any time soon
Thank you for this work!!
I have worked with models of 'systems', military and aerospace. Before we rely on a predictive model they are wrung through 3 phases of tests: verification, validation and accreditation. The first two are not mutually exclusive and only slightly overlap. Verify is about pertinence, modeling the right question, the second is how reliable the results and third is general/limited repeatable. Few models we abuse get through the first.
Covid 19 has given models as gospel with a level of faith required, I see climate models also require a deep faith.
To a zealot lack of faith is apostasy.....
to logic faith is not a basis of knowledge )(epistemology). Covid and climate zealots are epistemologically challenged.
That said I hope we can get in to the professions of faith in things like wind and solar (and batteries with the environmental wreckage they enforce) and the abject lack of system view around those virtue signals for wrecking the civilization.
You've probably nailed the problem when mentioning adjusting the parameters fed into computer models. As we continue our journey forward in time there seems to be more 'preponderance of presumption' being used more often for climate prediction compared to using actual measurements we have on hand for the past 140 years and not 'adjusting' them to fit the preferred predicted outcome. Lay people and apparently scientists themselves tend forget computers only calculate, they don't predict - people do. Feeding adjusted data into a calculator then tweaking it will invariably lead to dubious conclusions. Thank you for pointing out past computer modelling's consistent failures to predict current times. That seems a difficult lesson for people predicting 100 years into the future to recognize and learn from it.
Nice work. You have a lot of the good stuff here. I was looking into the logarithmic effects of CO2 and found a lot of good info going back several years on this site which is probably already on your radar:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Patrick Moore's Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.
I still don't understant the main concept. If IR are back radiatived by the increase of greenhouse gases from earth. Why solar IR are not more reflected to the space when theese same gases increase ? WHere is this part in the model ? In case of increase of these gases the amount of IR reflected directely to space have to increase . To much greenhouse gases at high concentration necesseraly reflect more energy into space .