Reply to: Leading Climate Scientist admits climate models are bollox

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[pjclarke]

Musings of a young climate scientist

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

[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".

[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.

[BlasterBates]

Musings of a young climate scientist

Must be hard when you discover you've spent several years learning nonsense.

[pjclarke]

All models are wrong by definition. Some models are useful. Besides, the best way to measure heat is via temperature using thermometers which, if you read the paper is what Lyman (the black line) did.

I know the Hansen quote you're referring to and it really does expose the desparation in some quarters. Rather than engage with his peer-reviewed research we must focus instead on a press interview from 2001 with Rob Reiss:-

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway will be under water"

The fact that the highway is still high and dry is used to brand Hansen alarmist. WattsUpWiththat even went to the trouble of surveying it using Google Earth . But even this attack based on decades old hearsay fails. Because:-

- The reporter was mistaken. Hansen said 40 years not 20.

- The highway he was referring to was temporary and has been rebuilt. The original suffered from flooding.

Monbiot said it best,

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.

Junk Science.

[EternalOptimist]

now we all know that models are flakey. so stop it with the models.
the best way to measure ocean heat content is via thermal expansion which equates to sea level rise

what does Hansen have to say about sea level rises ? say in Manhatten for example

[pjclarke]

One thing thats always puzzled me, is why the big emphasis on the atmospheric temperature ? ... Surely its the heat content of the oceans that we should be looking at ?

Absolutely. That is a far better metric. here 'tis:-



Source:- Lyman et al

[EternalOptimist]

False binary. There are not two classes of science, settled and not settled. That's a politician's rather than a scientist's soundbite. I've never said that, and far as I know, nor has Hansen.

but it's what you have been teaching our kids

[pjclarke]

even saint Hansen himself cannot claim that the science is settled.

False binary. There are not two classes of science, settled and not settled. That's a politician's rather than a scientist's soundbite. I've never said that, and far as I know, nor has Hansen.

[EternalOptimist]

It is a draft, and the review of aerosols are, well, about time. maybe clouds next eh ?

but no matter how you spin it pj, even in your wildest dreams, even saint Hansen himself

cannot claim that the science is settled.