The preceding posting, Climate Modelers are Wizard of Oz’s Spawn, noted that the backcasting used to prove the models, was not scientifically viable/honest. I worked in systems operations in manufacturing facilities where solutions to problems were proposed and then tested to see if they worked in the real world. The technique of backcasting to fit an experience curve has been around for a long time. When the model seemed to match history, the “solution” resulting from that model was employed going forward. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not work. In the real world, you have to test, test and retest your premises to assess the confidence of the rightness of the solution. The concept of proving your solutions is not the standard in the science of global warming climate modeling as far as I can tell. And my view is that the global climate dynamic is vastly greater that any of the problems we were solving in the operating facilities, thus the likelihood of obtaining a high degree of certainty is problematic.
Lets look at a summary of a recent posting that lists 10 issues that demonstrates that the models are not ready for prime time. This is from The Hockey Schtick blog where more detail is provided in that posting and can be read by clicking here.
1, IPCC admits climate models have not been verified by empirical observations to assess confidence
2 IPCC admits it is not clear about which tests are critical to verify and assess confidence in the models.
3 Of 16 identified climate forcings, IPCC admits only two have a high level of understanding. Most of the others are said to have a low level of understanding.
4 Of the two identified as having high level of understanding (greenhouse gases and positive feedback) they are actually not well understood with empirical satellite data showing sensitivity to doubling CO2 with feedback is only about 0.7°C which is a factor of 4 less than IPCC climate models.
5 Climate models falsely assume “back-radiation” from greenhouse gases can heat the oceans. In fact IR radiation can only penetrate the surface a few microns with all the energy used in the phase change of evaporation–which in fact cools the oceans.
6 UV radiation is capable of penetrating the ocean to a depth of several meters. The IPCC models ignore UV.
7 IPCC is not certain whether clouds have a net cooling or warming effect even though it is shown empirically that clouds are many times more important than greenhouse gases.
8 Ocean oscillation can have huge effects on climate and these are not incorporated into the models.
9 The traditional climate models fail to properly reconstruct the correct amplitude of climate oscillations that have clear solar/astronomical signature.
10 Climate models continue to greatly exaggerate sensitivity to CO2 by 67%. Despite the climate modeler having admitted this, they are unwilling or unable to tweak the models to match observed temperatures.
cbdakota
Climate Change Sanity 