All my son's Prof's say the engineers have their heads in a calculator.
BOTW, what engineers and computer scientists know is that output of any computer model is only as good as the inputs and assumptions of that model.
When somebody tells them that he's got global warming modeled and it all looks very impressive, they don't bow to the impressiveness of the computer model. They start asking hard questions about the what is and is not in that model, what assumptions it uses, what sources of data it uses, and of what quality, how many arbitrary parameters (aka "fudge factors") are being used in the model, etc.
It turns out the climate models do not pass these tests very well. Enormous factors in the production of atmospheric gases, like vegetation, are not included in the models. The model's assumptions about cloud formation do not include the influence of cosmic rays. The models assume that warmer temperatures will lead to less cloud cover, a big factor in the runaway warming they predict; observations are coming in that warmer temps lead to more cloud cover. In some cases, the global temp data sets have been fudged to show more warming that really exists - sometimes by accident, via "urban heat effects" and sometimes on purpose by scientists who needed the model to produce the "right" answer. And so on.
The brilliant physicist Freeman Dyson has been going on for years on the weakness of the climate models and the scientific establishment's over-reliance on them, to the detriment of needed scientific observation. Dyson also knows, from personal experience, how easy it is for the brightest scientist to fall in love with his model, to the detriment of science.
Freeman Dyson on the weakness of the climate models
youtube.com |
