Climate Models

Another example of their bogosity:

It occurs to me to wonder whether this error in the GISS-E2-R ocean mixing parameterisation, which gave rise to AMOC instability in the Pliocene simulation, might possibly account for the model’s behaviour in LU run 1. It looks to me as if something goes seriously wrong with the AMOC in the middle of the 20th century in that run, with no subsequent recovery evident.

But let’s make wealth-destroying policy based on this!

[Update on January 28th]

Insights from Karl Popper to break the gridlock in the climate debate.

It’s sad how so many people who (ironically) accuse me of being a “climate denier” or a “science denier” are so profoundly ignorant of how science actually works.


[Update a while later]

An analysis from Judith Curry and Nic Lewis on the latest climate crap from Mann et al:

As I see it, this paper is a giant exercise in circular reasoning:

  1. Assume that the global surface temperature estimates are accurate; ignore the differences with the satellite atmospheric temperatures
  2. Assume that the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble can be used to accurately portray probabilities
  3. Assume that the CMIP5 models adequately simulate internal variability
  4. Assume that external forcing data is sufficiently certain
  5. Assume that the climate models are correct in explaining essentially 100% of the recent warming from CO2

In order for Mann et al.’s analysis to work, you have to buy each of these 5 assumptions; each of these is questionable to varying degrees.

You don’t say.

7 thoughts on “Climate Models”

  1. I’m willing to believe in AGW. I’m also willing to believe that GW we have seen is natural.

    I won’t trust the climate models until they and their data sets are open source. And all the data sets need to be traceable, with all modifications disclosed, to the source instruments.

    Put them in the open, let people pick at them, fix bugs, improve the code. Then we can decide what to do. Given that this will take a few years, and there is the potential for us to be on a path to a climate disaster, we need to be dumping money into nuclear power, superconducting power transmission systems, and alternative energy concepts like Polywell fusion and cold fusion. This list is in descending order of cost, btw,

    1. Indeed. If you’re using secret computer models and secret data sets, what you’re doing isn’t science, and you certainly can’t claim that your secrets are subject to “peer review.”

  2. Nuclear power is costly for a lot of the same reasons that Apollo to Mars is costly. The types of fuel, the pressurization mechanisms, the behavior characteristics of the power plants in the US are nearly all legacy of naval nuclear propulsion, where the engineering trade-offs one would make to optimize for one use case aren’t necessarily the same as the ones you’d make to optimize for the other. Also most (all?) of the nuclear power plants (unlike in France) are nearly one-offs. Each is unique. Some follow from a basic blueprint but all have had unique modifications. They are far from what you’d call a “standard design”. Because of these reasons and popular paranoia around the word “nuclear”, these plants are far more expensive than they need be for purpose. Unfortunately the public has now been conditioned to think nuclear == costly. If it weren’t for the paranoia, it’d be great if someone could do the nuclear version of a SpaceX….

    1. Bill Gates is investing in small standardized reactors. A company in Canada is getting some venture money for a small molten salt reactor. But there is more that could be done: pebble bed, other thorium concept, waste reprocessing, etc.

  3. #2 #3 & #5 are self-contradictory since the several models don’t agree with each other. So which one is right? You know is like the old saw about a man with one watch vs the one with many watches who cannot tell the time…

  4. I find it hard to understand the post and the comments. Did any or all of you go through both papers and the blog articles of Lewis, and work out all the math, and/or try and duplicate it (Lewis’s code and data at least was posted with his article)? If you did, all power to you. If you didn’t, then IMHO you basically have no business commenting. Me neither. My rough guess is that Lewis is probably right, but that’s just based on history and on the fact that he found so _many_ problems with the other paper, including that really interesting graph of Lewis’s (Figure 4). Wait and see.
    I quite understand that the usual suspects on the other side are claiming that they do know the answer already: Lewis’s rebuttal has not been peer-reviewed yet so it’s wrong. But just because they are being idiots is no excuse for others.

Comments are closed.