Leading Climate Scientist admits climate models are bollox

[d000hg]

now we all know that models are flakey. so stop it with the models.

If you don't have models then how do you explain changes? You need models to explain bumps and trends so see if they are due to the sun, atmosphere, or something else. If you just plot a graph of empirical results the data is too complex to really tell you much - hence BB & pj just posting graphs at each other all the time, to fuel their arguments.

Of course you need empirical data to test the model but really you need both. The point is to not demand your model is true in face of the data.

[sasguru]

That's the problem with the internet, there's too much noise from thick, uneducated fools like BB and EO.

Although with BB it has now become a mental illness. His confusion is such that he'll quote papers that directly contradict his "position".

[pjclarke]

Musings of a young climate scientist

You do realise this is fiction, don't you?

[BlasterBates]

You do realise this is fiction, don't you?

Thx for pointing out a blindingly obvious fact.

Yes I think most of us here can distinguish satire from fact.

[EternalOptimist]

If you don't have models then how do you explain changes? You need models to explain bumps and trends so see if they are due to the sun, atmosphere, or something else. If you just plot a graph of empirical results the data is too complex to really tell you much - hence BB & pj just posting graphs at each other all the time, to fuel their arguments.

Of course you need empirical data to test the model but really you need both. The point is to not demand your model is true in face of the data.

models have a place, they are one tool in the toolbox, one weapon in the armoury. If too much reliance is placed on them that is not good. There are those in the CAGW movement who believe in using models alone, even in place of observation and measurements.

I just cant agree that that makes any sense at all

[d000hg]

All the foundational work in physics was done through building and refining models. Those models were built so they fit the observed data at the time and then tested to see if predictions they made were met by gathering new data. Without models nothing would get done. And in some cases models are right over empirical data due to error or some other effect.

But yes, when your model doesn't match new observed data you have to do something. i.e. bolt on a new mini-model

[EternalOptimist]

All the foundational work in physics was done through building and refining models. Those models were built so they fit the observed data at the time and then tested to see if predictions they made were met by gathering new data. Without models nothing would get done. And in some cases models are right over empirical data due to error or some other effect.

But yes, when your model doesn't match new observed data you have to do something. i.e. bolt on a new mini-model

I am sure you have seen the code snippets from Climategate by now, here is one just to remind you



FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro;mknormal,yyy,timey,refper iod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

[Spacecadet]

There was a scientist on Today this morning talking about an exo planet which had been too cold to harbour life. So they changed the climate model, now it was warm enough and it does have life