You seem to be deliberately avoiding Freeman Dyson's point, which is that the current models produce outputs that match observed data NOT because of their underlying theory of greenhouse gases, but because their outputs have been made to fit with all kinds of "fudge factors" which are supposed to represent cloud formation, vegetation growth, snow melt, etc, etc. If you run the model without the fudge factors, the outputs do NOT match observed data. Will the fudge factors continue to match the data going forward? Who knows?
I know very well what he is saying. He is avoiding the fact all those "fudge factors" are common values that run for the duration of the simulation, and they do a good job over the last century when significant changes occurred. He is instead trying to confuse you into think that the fudge factors are a curve fit. Go look at the simulations and pay attention to the frequency content of the output. That is your clue that the fudge factors are not a curve fit. If you don't understand the previous two sentences, don't comment on models, you are not competent too.
What he should be saying instead is that the fudge factors amount to a linearization of sorts around an operating point (current conditions) and as conditions stray further from the operating point used for validation, they become more suspect. That is the correct way of stating what he should be stating (I have no ideal if he actually understands that, his prattle would indicate he does not). This is a valid concern, BUT, the argument against this is that the total projected variation for the next century does in fact not takes us very far from the current point as far as the physics/chemistry of any of the model processes are concerned. Further the models worked fine with the variation over the last 100 years.
This is why I point out that anyone who does not like the current models should work on a "better" one. Guess what, the only people working on better ones are the climate scientists who keep refining their models. To understand this, read up on the history of the Hockey stick and see what those bashing it actually produced. All they did was bitch that there were "flaws" but the graphs produced sans "flaws" don't change anything. LOL! All they did was snooker people who latched on to the word "error" and thought this invalidated the original graph. It does not work that way. Look very carefully at what the Waxman (sp??) commission did. They didn't bother to produce a "corrected" graph. Instead they hid behind a claim that they were just looking at methodology, concluded that there were some errors, then claimed this called the original graph into question. Be careful when people are not willing to show you exactly what their claimed corrections actually change.
What kind of a red herring is this? Whether any branch of science has advanced significantly in the last 100 years is besides the point. The point being, were the claims that were advanced by a large consensus of scientists, activists and politicians scientifically sound? Or were they found to be scientifically lacking?
You are the red herring not me! Large consensus’s have been wrong many times, but certain areas of knowledge advance to the point were they will not be shown "wrong" in the future. Fields in their infancy will suffer great reverses. We are not going to overturn solar cosmology, which was roughly sorted out hundreds of years ago. But many things in social sciences and medicine from just 100 years ago are laughable today. What don't you understand about this? You've latched onto one of the laughable ones from 100 years ago and are trying to imply that this means a certain area of science today is equally nonsense. What sort of BS is that?
One could very justly compare the state of social science a hundred years ago to the state of climatology today. In both cases, the scientists know they are on to something important. And in both cases, they have barely begun to get a handle on an insanely complicated subject - dynamic, chaotic, nonlinear and tightly coupled.
I understand quite well that is what you are doing. Total nonsense IMO. If you want to run with that fine. |
