An excellent entry in the Quadrant Online by John Reid titled “Climate Modelling Nonsense” discusses dangers of governmental legislation based on the forecasts made by the General Circulation Models (GCM) developed by the IPCC and allies. He believes that the scientific method has been abandoned by the man-made global warmist running these models.
Dr Reid is Phd who did his postgraduate work in upper atmosphere physics. He says the GCMs are not tested, but rather they are “verified”:
In the early 1980s I joined the CSIRO’s Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) for a time. Much of the theoretical side of oceanography entails fluid dynamics which, because of its heavy mathematical load, is regarded as a sub-discipline of applied mathematics rather than of physics. Because of this, in my view, many practitioners of oceanography and climatology have a cavalier disregard for experimental testing and an unjustified faith in the validity of large-scale computer models.
Later in my career I was involved in running and refining numerical fluid dynamical models, so I gained some insight into how this modelling is done and how rigorously such models need to be tested. Naval architects and aerodynamical engineers do such testing in wave tanks and wind tunnels.
Meteorologists regularly test model “skill”. Climatologists don’t seem to have a concept of testing, and prefer to use the term “verification” instead—that is, they do not seek to invalidate their models; they only seek supporting evidence.
He also says it is his belief that the early models showed little increase in global temperatures with increasing atmospheric CO2, not the “desired” temperature increases they were looking for. He adds:
However, an ingenious trick was used to make this happen. It is called “water vapour positive feedback” and appears to be used in all the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models. Without it, the climate models would show negligible increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Water vapour positive feedback is only an assumption; but, importantly for the modellers, it is an assumption which makes the models work. There is little experimental evidence that it is true, and radiometer data collected by NASA scientist Roy Spencer and others indicate that it is not true.
Reid concludes with
People are entitled to entertain whatever apocalyptic view of the future they choose, but such ideas have nothing to do with science. Climate prediction is not science, it is pseudo-science, and sooner or later more real scientists are going to wake up to this fact.
Read his complete entry by clicking here
Cbdakota
Climate Change Sanity 