A black box computerized "climate model" is not science. Science is when they spread the entrails out so I can inspect them and agree that they are right, duplicating their experiments, which we can't do because the only experiment which can be done is the real time 3D experiment on the actual climate.
The so-called science is an open-ended theoretical guess about how the climate works, with, of course, gross simplifications so it can fit inside their computer. Then they crank up the computer and see what comes out.
If they think the output doesn't match what they think it should be, or diverges too much from the models other climate researchers are making, then they can change their inputs, their assumptions, their simplifications, their theories, to get a "better" output.
The science can be discussed. There's no kibosh on discussing science. I have explained how "the science" works: Oscillating chlorophyll cover, plate tectonics [not teutonics <g>], oscillating snow cover, oscillating deserts, subduction, oil and gas collection under impermeable sedimentary layers, volcanoes, stripping of carbon from the ecosphere, oscillating cloud cover, oscillating dew points, the water cycle and heat pump [equator to poles], and now, CO2 production by people to give a boost to the chlorophyll crowd and expand their range [due to reduced water requirements].
Is there any particular part of the science you want to discuss? Plate tectonics perhaps? How are their computer models on that? Maybe their models are too short term to include subduction effects. How about volcanoes? When do their models predict volcanoes to erupt? My model has Taupo erupting 1 chance in 10 in the next 50 years. What does Hansen's say for Taupo? Let's discuss that.
My guess is that his model, [and the others], doesn't include Taupo.
Okay, let's consider sun science. My model correctly [so far] predicted the latest sun-spot cycle while the experts are just coming around to my way of thinking now [AFTER the facts are showing up]. What does Hansen's model say for the latest sun-spot cycle? My guess is it is not included.
You can keep an eye on the sun here: sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov
I have been watching it a couple of times a day for a year and it is now running very gently. Not just no sun-spots, but very peaceable in other ways too. I'm starting to think my model is predicting too much activity, though my prediction was way below the predictions of the experts.
We should be worrying about reglaciation in about 10 years at the next solar minimum. Heck, the way things are going, if the sun doesn't kick into gear soon, we might not have to wait longer than Xmas for the tipping point to reglaciation.
Hansen was apparently an astronomer before he became a climate enthusiast. So his prediction from last year for this cycle would be interesting. Have a look in his model and see what it said. My guess is his prediction was up with the rest, wayyyy above mine. I was right, they were wrong.
The best test of scientific theories is what actually happens. If reality doesn't match the theory, that's because the theory was bung, not the reality. If their sun-spot predictions are not as good as mine, perhaps their climate models and predictions aren't as good either. Especially since the climate has more than a passing association with what the sun does.
Mqurice |
