Climate Model Hubris

Climate Model Hubris

The Wall Street Journal, in its section The Future of Everything, published a full page analysis concerning the problem of too much data.

The lead paragraph said:

“Scientists are scrambling to store and analyze a surge of meticulous measurements of the planet. These efforts will inform policy makers across the globe.”

In short, there is an explosion in the amount of data being generated by all the new satellite’s, ocean buoys, etc., measuring temperatures, soil moisture, ocean currents, air quality, cloud cover, and hundreds of other phenomena on Earth and in its atmosphere.

The WSJ article predicted that there would be an increase from 83 petabytes of data today, to 650 petabytes of data as the result of all the new measuring devices now in place. One petabyte of data can hold thousands of full length movies.

Suresh Vannan, NASA, said, “Now we can truly do climate studies because now we have observations to precisely say how weather trends have changed and are changing.”  

The article said, 

“Earth’s future may depend in part on whether their efforts measure up.”

But,  are the right things being measured to determine the cause of climate change and global warming?

All the data in the world won’t solve any problem if the wrong things are being measured.

It’s GIGO, on steroids.

Computer models that only use data from the Earth are missing at least half the picture.

What about the sun?

Butterfly Diagram of Sunspots

The fact is, scientists know very little about how the sun works, yet it is the source of all our energy.

The book, Nature’s Third Cycle, the story of Sun Spots, by Choudhur, deals with how the sun works, and exposes that we really don’t know very much about its inner workings.

The book, The Neglected Sun, by Vahrenholt and Luning, describe the many things about the sun that are being ignored.

Accurate data is important to any scientific endeavor, and obtaining it should be applauded.

But care should be taken in how it is used. Computer programs using massive amounts of incomplete data are not the answer.

The hubris displayed by the WSJ article is breathtaking.

. . .



Please follow and like us:

8 Replies to “Climate Model Hubris”

  1. Excellent article. First, there is no such thing as too much data. Second, they don’t use it properly — if at ll. Dr. Chris Folland (of the Hadley Science Fellow at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre and former IPCC lead author) once said, “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” Even though Dr. Folland, now very embarrassed for telling the truth, now admits they do use data — however — all the models still run too hot. It is clear that the “climate modelers” pick and choose which data to use — which obviously is the data that fits their agenda of “man-made” global warming.

  2. have worked on Wall Street for almost 40 years … and for that entire 40 years we have always been “right on the cusp” of being able to use all the “data” we store to determine the direction of the market or a single stock price … just because you can “measure” something doesn’t mean you can draw meaningful insights from the data …

    The problem for the “climate scientists” is that they had/have a theory they came too without first gathering real world valid data … in other words they didn’t look at the data first and then come up with a theory to explain the data … they came up with a theory and now are furiously gathering “data” to try and validate the theory … and when your livelihood depends on the data validating your theory I guarantee you they ignore or hide or ADJUST any data that doesn’t fit the “theory” … just look at the historical temperature records for the US … decades old records are adjusted every year to “fit” the narrative …

    couple that with the fact that the idea of a “global” temperature is nonsense on stilts … there is no consistent dataset of temperatures measured evenly across the entire globe … one of the biggest continents (Antarctica) has less than a dozen thermometers available to get temperature records (the satellites don’t work at the poles) same with the Artic … so when they want to get a “global” temperature with even data cells to average they simply fill in the blanks (cells with no measurements) with guesses … i.e. not data but guesses … and mostly bad guesses … they call it homogenization … which is like blending vanilla ice cream with dog poop … you end up with crap ice cream …

    Even the simple claim of CO2 levels is useless … in general it is measured at ONE PLACE on earth in Hawaii … right next to an active volcano (which is also a source of CO2) … one of the fundamental tenants of the AGW theory is that CO2 is a well mixed gas … well, they now have a CO2 satellite that takes daily measures of CO2 for much of the globe … what is clearly shown is that CO2 is far from being a well mixed gas … that alone would invalidate the AGW theory …

  3. NASA’s Solar Physics division is focused on studies of the Sun. They have a spacecraft in the solar atmosphere now. Like climate, solar physics is not simple.

    • No question astrophysics is equally, if not more complicated than the physics surrounding the Earth.
      The point is, of course, using computers to define climate change requires data from both sources if they are to have any believable results.

  4. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #484 – Watts Up With That?