Comments on: Climate change science is not settled

By: Monty

Monty — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:17:46 +0000

Incidentally, I don’t want to over-state the claims for prediction of man-made systems. A simple pendulum can be fairly accurately modelled. A compound pendulum, with two or more pivot points, becomes extremely difficult.

Weather, and climate, have so many influences, and so many degrees of freedom, that I think we are getting carried away. Science and technology have made enormous strides in my lifetime, but I think it tends to make us complacent, we think the science is more advanced than it is.

This has led to hog-heaven for political elites. A manufactured crisis that they can use for their own purposes, but disregard also whenever it suits them. Because of course, they know the sky isn’t falling down.

By: Monty

Monty — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:54:11 +0000

Computer models, and computer simulations, are only really good at modelling man-made systems. Stuff we know everything about because we made it. Buildings, vehicles, electronic circuits, mechanical thingumyjigs.

But when it comes to the natural world, it is very poor. Even something fairly restricted in scope, like the simulation of a man’s voice, is pretty dire. This is why we can’t make Stephen Hawking’s electronic speech anywhere near as good as Rex Harrison, or even Stephen Hawking.

Short-term weather forecasting is even more complex, and long term climate prediction is way beyond us at present.

By: ZT

ZT — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:39:19 +0000

We do know that Hansen is a ‘wild eyed’ liar. He ‘fudged’ temperature data to make it appear that the hottest year in the 20th century was 1998 rather than 1932, which was the true hottest year. He was forced to admit he did this.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:04:17 +0000

“We do know what the physics of, say, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be”: no we fucking don’t. Silly boy!

By: Kit

Kit — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:29:59 +0000

From the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:

“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”

The IPCC know about this but don’t seem to be in any rush to narrow these uncertainties.

h/t Roy Spencer

By: The Englishman

The Englishman — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:42:13 +0000

The lie isn’t in the science but that the science is settled.
Every “consensus” statement needs sceptics to prod it and say “prove it” – and that isn’t just about climate science. It’s about drugs policy, economic policy, crime reduction, everything.