4 thoughts on “Curry’s Paper On The Bogosity Of Climate Modeling”
One of the issues I’ve had with CO2 based modeling is that the models I’ve seen utterly ignore many large factors.
For example, the massive increase in water and decrease in albedo in inland mid latitude regions (both due to agriculture). Also related are the increased water vapor output due to reservoir surface areas, lawns, pools, etc, etc, etc.
I’m certainly not suggesting ending agriculture, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t just ignore a major climate aspect (water vapor is a vastly more effective greenhouse gas than CO2) and expect accurate results.
To put it in spaceflight terms, it’s like trying to model launch vehicle performance while ignoring mass.
There are of course many other issues with the models. The end result? GIGO. (Garbage in, garbage out.).
They get it wrong right from the go when they talk about ‘inadequate computer modeling’ which implies that with more data their models might be adequate. That’s an unjustified assumption until after creating a model that can make accurate predictions without tweaks.
It is very likely that even with the impossible condition of having all possible data the model would still deviate from reality.
In the real world the best you can usually do is bracket the possibilities but even that is subject to error.
With such a chaotic system, wouldn’t you expect to see more variety in the predictions? Wouldn’t the assumption that temperature has to increase lead to that conclusion? At the very least, I would think that there would be many peaks and valleys along the way because that is how the climate operates.
Also, isn’t a temperature swing, in either direction, of a degree or two over hundreds of years rather normal for our climate?
They’re basically curve fitting. The models generate enough of a functional basis that they can fit past climate by tweaking enough knobs. But, that does not validate the models, nor confer predictive skill. In fact, they don’t even fit the historical data all that well, and they failed to predict the ongoing hiatus.
There is nothing going on that is outside the realm of historical variability. The claim is made that temperatures are rising faster than can be explained by natural causes. Yet, the rise from 1910-1940 was almost precisely the same as the rise from 1970-2000, before the sudden surge in CO2 starting about mid-century could have been responsible for it. They hand-wave that away by blaming aerosols, for which there are no measurements. Yet, were that even so, it was natural, and it was just as fast.
It’s a farce, and a scientific fiasco of the first order.
One of the issues I’ve had with CO2 based modeling is that the models I’ve seen utterly ignore many large factors.
For example, the massive increase in water and decrease in albedo in inland mid latitude regions (both due to agriculture). Also related are the increased water vapor output due to reservoir surface areas, lawns, pools, etc, etc, etc.
I’m certainly not suggesting ending agriculture, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t just ignore a major climate aspect (water vapor is a vastly more effective greenhouse gas than CO2) and expect accurate results.
To put it in spaceflight terms, it’s like trying to model launch vehicle performance while ignoring mass.
There are of course many other issues with the models. The end result? GIGO. (Garbage in, garbage out.).
They get it wrong right from the go when they talk about ‘inadequate computer modeling’ which implies that with more data their models might be adequate. That’s an unjustified assumption until after creating a model that can make accurate predictions without tweaks.
It is very likely that even with the impossible condition of having all possible data the model would still deviate from reality.
In the real world the best you can usually do is bracket the possibilities but even that is subject to error.
With such a chaotic system, wouldn’t you expect to see more variety in the predictions? Wouldn’t the assumption that temperature has to increase lead to that conclusion? At the very least, I would think that there would be many peaks and valleys along the way because that is how the climate operates.
Also, isn’t a temperature swing, in either direction, of a degree or two over hundreds of years rather normal for our climate?
They’re basically curve fitting. The models generate enough of a functional basis that they can fit past climate by tweaking enough knobs. But, that does not validate the models, nor confer predictive skill. In fact, they don’t even fit the historical data all that well, and they failed to predict the ongoing hiatus.
There is nothing going on that is outside the realm of historical variability. The claim is made that temperatures are rising faster than can be explained by natural causes. Yet, the rise from 1910-1940 was almost precisely the same as the rise from 1970-2000, before the sudden surge in CO2 starting about mid-century could have been responsible for it. They hand-wave that away by blaming aerosols, for which there are no measurements. Yet, were that even so, it was natural, and it was just as fast.
It’s a farce, and a scientific fiasco of the first order.