Predictive Power of Modern Climatological Models

[Stochasty]

The critical factor in such schemes is understanding under which conditions these models are valid, where they perform well, where they perform adaquetely, where they perform badly, etc.

But this is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Please tell me where, in the climate science literature, I can find studies of these sorts for the GCM models which are used to make the climate predictions which appear in the IPCC reports and other politically relevant literature?

I've looked; I haven't found them. If you happen to know of such, by all means point me in that direction! Because, as far as I can tell, this type of assessment has never been made, which means that the primary point of those essays to which I linked is right on the money.

This really isn't controversial stuff I'm asking for here. If you've worked on quantum modelling, as you've claimed, then I'm sure you've been forced to do similar assessments of your own models to pass peer review (or used models for which similar assessments had been made). Failure to make these types of assessments means that you aren't yet doing legitimate science.

Why is asking about this type of stuff as regards climate science so taboo? Why does it provoke such an argument from those on your side of the debate when I point it out? Why don't you, rather, just post relevant links to the literature showing that my questions have been addressed or are, for whatever reason, off base?

[MBobrik]

I can point out that there is evidence (granted, evidence based on stolen emails) that a small group of influential climate scientists have intentionally manipulated the peer review system.

Just another lie.

[MBobrik]

Dr. Michael Mann - has been thoroughly discredited and were he in any other field he would have been forced to retract his most well-known paper.

EDIT: I've misread your post as saying that the paper was retracted.

But anyway, you've declared something discredited to the extent that it should be retracted, w/o proof and even insinuated that the entire

field is thus lacking integrity. Again, without a shred of evidence. Seems that you think that merely stating an accusation is enough proof of guilt.

Edited June 16, 2013 by MBobrik

[MBobrik]

Dr. James Hansen, for instance - are also climate activists with well-known biases.

.

Yeah, right, when your research shows we've got a problem, you must not start doing something about it. Because that would make you an activist with well-known biases and your research discredited.

[MBobrik]

I can point out that the singularly most influential political climate change organization - the IPCC - is controlled by people (Rajendra Pachauri being the best example) who have a vested, monetary interest in seeing carbon control measures put into place.

.

Just another your pathetic attempt at poisoning the well.

[MBobrik]

And I could go on and on. Exposing your shameless propaganda and lies line by line. But given that the very first factual claims in your post turned out to be all falsehoods and baseless accusations, I don't think it is necessary to make a conclusion about your intellectual integrity being sub-zero.

[Ted]

MBobrik, please keep this discussion civil and refrain from attacking others and using such an abrasive tone. You could, instead, simply refute their points with logic and reason. Additionally, please refrain from posting many times in a row, in quick succession, instead just simply edit your post.

[The Stinger]

I know! Let's wait and see if we are wrong. Wouldn't it be fun if we are right and we leave the mess to next generation.

[tavert]

I can't really convince you that feeling jaded about the state of science - especially climate science - is the right way to feel, but I can assure you that the easiest way to gain that feeling is to become a scientist yourself.

Well, I'm 4 years into a PhD in mechanical engineering, if that means anything. I don't plan on staying in academia, for many of the reasons you mention. But the politics of academia in general, the politicization of the particular field of climate science, and the scientific merits of the research are 3 separate issues. Unless you focus entirely on the scientific merit, your argument sounds conspiratorial and/or "jaded academic from some other field who is trying to argue that climate scientists don't know what they're doing."

You have a point that the headline analysis would, in an ideal world, be backed up by more publication of due-diligence analysis of model assumptions, applicability, and parameter sensitivity. The general public and policymakers don't understand that type of analysis, and it's unfortunate that there seems to be less of it published. But you should stop using this as an excuse to discount the entire field.

Edited June 17, 2013 by tavert

[magnemoe]

And I could go on and on. Exposing your shameless propaganda and lies line by line. But given that the very first factual claims in your post turned out to be all falsehoods and baseless accusations, I don't think it is necessary to make a conclusion about your intellectual integrity being sub-zero.

How is this strange? We know well that organizations like Nasa is deep into the political corruption game. The reason for many programs are not primary science but to please senators and get more money.

This is discussed here without much disagreement. Should be avoided but pretty much the cost of doing business, but the reason why so many is happy to get NASA out of the launch business.

Why should climate science be any different?

Again nobody is arguing against more money to the science parts even expensive stuff like satellites and supercomputers.

That people is arguing about is if we should start a trillion dollar project to reduce co2 emissions.

This is not science this is politic and is played with totally different rules.

[PakledHostage]

Why should climate science be any different?

Again nobody is arguing against more money to the science parts even expensive stuff like satellites and supercomputers.

That people is arguing about is if we should start a trillion dollar project to reduce co2 emissions.

This is not science this is politic and is played with totally different rules.

Yes, please tell us why climate science should be any different? If it is true that all scientific funding decisions are political, then why do you advocate ignoring the warnings of climate science and not everything else? If such biases exist, then it should be possible to find them in every decision that we make in society. Maybe we shouldn’t make any decisions because they’re all biased?

Could it be, instead, that you have a misguided sense of the relative risks/rewards and possibly even the morality of doing nothing? As NASA argued in response to critics who complained about its having spent over $2 billion on the Curiosity mission: They didn't load those $2 billion onto a spacecraft and send it to Mars. They spent that $2 billion here on Earth. That money stimulated the economy.

Likewise, any money that we spend developing new energy technologies will also stimulate the economy. We're not putting a trillion dollars (your number) into a pile and burning it, dusting off our hands and saying "that'll solve global warming"... There will be new engineering, manufacturing and all of the spin-off jobs that go with them. There will inevitably be declines in some areas, but new opportunities will emerge to replace them.

You've also got to contrast the expense of dealing with the problem against the cost of doing nothing. Not only in terms of the possible damage to the environment and ecosystems that we depend on, but in terms of using up a finite resource that has other uses. Oil, after all, is used for more than just fuel. Pharmaceuticals, plastics and many other products are made from it. Where will we get those from if we burn all the oil in our SUVs and 4x4 F350s?

Edited June 17, 2013 by PakledHostage

[Fractal_UK]

But this is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Please tell me where, in the climate science literature, I can find studies of these sorts for the GCM models which are used to make the climate predictions which appear in the IPCC reports and other politically relevant literature?

I've looked; I haven't found them. If you happen to know of such, by all means point me in that direction! Because, as far as I can tell, this type of assessment has never been made, which means that the primary point of those essays to which I linked is right on the money.

A complete review of climate science literature and modelling techniques would likely be needed to answer this question in detail, fortunately some of this has already been done and I would recommend having a read through this review article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2526v1.pdf. The author appears to have a background in physics so seems to approach climate science in a way that may be more accessible to those within our fields.