Posted On: Monday - December 26th 2016 7:34PM MST
In Topics:   Global Climate Stupidity
This post and a follow-up or two (I know I will not fit a whole summary into one post) is a summary for non-technical people of peakstupidity.com's view of the entire GCDTM hoax/scam/whatever. The descriptively technical posts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 may be unbelieved by a non-technical reader, of course, with the attitude of "the consensus of the climate scientist is this ...", or basically, "how do you know more about this than scientists in the field?" I do not purport to have more, or as much, knowledge of the subject than a climate scientist - one may tell me that this or other process of the climate was completely left out or this one is not important, as you suggest, etc.
The specific physical processes that are studied, and the hierarchy thereof, are not what the 5 posts about mathematical modelling were about. My points in those posts were about the extreme difficulty of modelling of multiple-process systems, especially without experimentation being an option. My posts also illustrate nicely the difference between science and engineering. The big difference is that what is learned in science does not have to be ready to work right away. Work is always in progress.
Were an engineer to publish a paper announcing that he had modeled the climate of the world, then people would expect that this model could be run off of current conditions and should create output of some sort to forecast the climate of next year, next decade, or whenever, within whatever tolerances he advertised. In the science of climatology, it is expected that the journals would cover the on-going work of studying the various processes (say, cloud formation, changes in ocean currents, etc.), but that this work would be studied by others, improved upon, added to and so forth to expand the science. Any serious paper describing a model of the entire climate would have to be interspersed with caveats like "more study of this process is needed ..." and "... the accuracy of our knowledge of this other one is very low ...". To state in a journal article that a published mathematical model should be used to actually forecast climate at the present time is a misrepresentation of of science and would be a flat-out lie.
This is where the politics get involved, and that is where the next post will start.