BC: AND YOU WANT TO BE MY LATEX SALESMAN ..
..
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
.
.
.
I did not say they “knew nothing” I did not say they needed to know “everything to infinite precision”. What I did say, is that they have not made even the most elementary validations of their models.
If they could put today’s climate information (sst, solar flux, air temps etc.) into their model and run the model for 30, 60, 90 days and then compare the predictions of the model to reality with good results, then and only then could they with any certainty at all, assert that they could predict, say 6 months in the future. Once they get 10 to 20 acceptably accurate 6 month predictions, then they could reasonably assert that they could predict the weather a 1 or 5 years in advance .. etc. etc.
They are making extremely long predictions with no short term validation tests to establish any sense of what the models precision is. In fact some of their current projections are not validating even in short time periods. They are not getting the signature atmospheric warming they expect, they did not predict the current stabilization, and downturn in temps. Their arctic ice predictions are not faring very well either, nor has the recent spat of cool wet weather many areas have had this last winter and spring done much to show they have a good grasp on even regional climate let alone global climate.
The AGW community is making projections of events that won’t even happen for 30 to 100 years with no track record of being able to predict any shorter time interval to any well accepted degree of accuracy. Everyone is just supposed to take their word for it that they used “math” and “Physics” and they are “experts” and they used “computers” so not to worry the predictions are reliable! Please go spend a few trillion dollars and while you are at it turn government regulations on their head and overhaul entire economies and break the back of a few industries and create a few other industries (cap and trade) out of thin air all on the “faith” that they got it right even though they freely admit that some of the numbers they used in their model were “educated guesses”, and they do not have a single meaningful validation test under their belt.
They need to go through a formal validation process. Not unlike the flight tests a new plane goes through. Even though it was “designed on a computer” with a very reliable and trusted mathematical model, that has been validated thousands of times befor, occasionally the plane does not do what the engineers expect. Sometimes the wings fall off, sometimes fuel lines vibrate and break in flight, sometimes the thoroughly tested automatic pilot system thinks the pilot wants to land when he does not, and flys him into the ground or does something else it is not expected to do.
When they can get 9 out of 10 predictions for climate conditions in 1, 5, or 10 years in the future, I might listen to them about a 50 year forecast. After they get a few of them right, then they can start asserting they have a clue what the climate will be in 100+ years.
=============================
From WUWT 6/22/09 |
