Larry Kummer suggests that we stop the silliness and end the Global Warming/Climate Change Debate the right way: with serious science.
Climate models are the center ring of the climate policy debate. Policy-makers need to know that models’ forecasts provide a robust basis for policies that will shape the economy and society of 21st century America – and the world.
That requries validation of models by experts. Human nature being what it is, those experts should be unaffiliated with the groups that designed and run the models (an insight from drug effectiveness testing). The cost of such a project would be pocket change compared to its importance.
America has a wealth of people and institutions capable of doing this. The National Academy of Sciences could be the lead agency in a Federal project to validate climate models. They could mobilize experts in the required wide range of fields.
Operational leadership could be provided by the Verification and Validation Committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). See their Guide for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics, their Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, and An Illustration of the Concepts of Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics. NOAA and NASA could assist. There are probably other expert groups that could help.
This is the opposite of relying on blogs and academic journals to lead the policy debate (a process that would be considered primitive by a colony of cherrystone clams).
This is the opposite of the IPCC’s methodology. It is focused, not broad. It requires a review of climate models by experts unaffiliated with their creation and operation. It uses proven methods relied upon in science, engineering, and business.
The policy gridlock has consumed scarce political resources for several decades, diverting attention from other severe threats (e.g., destruction of ocean ecosystems). If climate alarmists are correct, the gridlock burns time needed for action. Even if they are wrong, these kinds of hot political debates can put fanatics in power – with horrific consequences.
If implemented, this project will not change the climate. But it could break the gridlock. If it shows that models are reliable guides, it could quickly make effective public policy possible.
Why would we continue to rely on the processes which have failed for so long when there is an obvious, easy, and relatively fast alternative?
Larry
Thank you for reposting this. I’m astonished at the lack of interest in a proposal to bringing in experts to help resolve the political gridlock. It is cheap and fast, and might have a large effect.
But neither side has any interest. Which tells us something important about both sides in the policy debate.
Saul
You cannot validate a computer model. They are all designed around assumptions. I have created many computer models and in every case I asked the customer what he wanted the model to show. To quote a song; it’s all about “what you leave in and what you leave out”. It’s also what you emphasize and what you de-emphasize. AND I always put in back doors and trigger values. The intent was to allow the model to be tuned with experience by changing the value of one or more factors to compensate for what was learned so that the entire system wouldn’t have to be rewritten. But in practice that almost never happened and these disrupting factors remained unnoticed and uncontrolled.
Jake
Jordan Peterson raises some good points regarding “Global Warming”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY
Seattle Sam
Can’t get fact get in the way of a good emotional argument. Ever try to tell a 3 year old there are no such things as ghosts?
Seattle Sam
Can’t let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument. Ever try to tell a 3 year old there are no such things as ghosts?
bob sykes
There is actually one climate model that tracks the satellite data: the Russian model INMCM5. It happens also to predict the least warming, so of course it is unacceptable.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/2018-update-best-climate-model-inmcm5/
Emu
Much of the agenda on AGW involves misrepresenting actual data and hiding or altering the non-conforming data. Now, think about that. If this were an honest scientific study seeking the truth would you alter historical data showing past warming cycles so that your current warming cycle looked worse? Would you eliminate half or more of the existing temperature collection sites and by shear coincidence they were all sites that refuted AGW? Would you selectively cherry pick data and data acquisition methods that seemed to support your bias?
SteveS
> You cannot validate a computer model.
True, but you can invalidate them. Models are essentially theories about how things work. Like theories, they contain assumptions, simplifications, and outright omissions.
In the same way that we use a theory to make predictions and test those predictions against observations, we can test the predictions of our models.
If the predictions don’t match the observations, then the model is wrong. It’s that simple.
If the predictions *do* match, it it doesn’t mean the theory or model is correct. It simply increases our confidence that the model might be correct and can provide good answers.
Seattle Sam
20 years ago these models predicted warming that hasn’t happened. Why would you not discount whatever they are predicting today. It’s like asking Paul Krugman for his latest stock market forecast.
Mike-SMO
Gee. I guess an actual analysis is safe now that the data has been properly “adjusted”. And think of all the jobs for “cherry pickers”. And all the Obama Admirals can probably gin up somerthing for the great climate data hole known as the Indian Ocean.. After all isn’t that what Dago Garcia was for? Maybe Putin has some data locked away in the old Soviet files. They seem to have evry thing else.
Steverino
What would prove anthropogenic global warming (AGW) false? If nothing, then it is an irrational belief and, therefore, not science. If something, what is it? Where has it been tested? What were the results?
In science, you begin with a conjecture which you work up into a thesis. Then you devise a falsifiable proposition that you test to prove your thesis true or false. AGW has no falsifiable proposition. The global warmers simply assert it is true without going through all the pesky steps of the scientific method.
Global warmers appeal to science fallaciously with an appeal to authority rather than presenting the argument itself. Most arguments for AGW are fallacious, making them demagoguery, rather than rational.
Please Leave a Comment!