Climate Model Uncertainty: Part II

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2069 ^ | William M. Briggs

[mattstat]

Two problems arise when comparing a model’s integration (the forecast) with an analysis of new observations, which are not found when comparing the forecast to the observations themselves. Verifying the model with an analysis, we compare two equally sized “grids”; verifying the model with observations, we compare a tiny number of model grid points with reality.

Now, some kinds of screwiness in the model are also endemic in the analysis: the model and analysis are, after all, built from the same materials. Some screwiness, therefore, will remain hidden, undetectable in the model-analysis verification.

However, the model-analysis verification can reveal certain systematic errors, the knowledge of which can be used to improve the model. But the result is that the model, in its improvement cycle, is pushed towards the analysis. And always remember: the analysis is not reality, but a model of it.

Therefore, if models over time are tuned to analyses, they will reach an accuracy limit which is a function of how accurate the analyses are. In other words, a model might come to predict future analyses wonderfully, but it could still predict real-life observations badly.

Which brings us to the second major problem of model-against-analysis verification. ...

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[The Great RJ]

The climate change hoaxers did not create a model to explain what they were observing from the data, but bent the data to fit a model they already concocted. Way back someone theorized that CO2 levels might have an impact on climate, but that idea was quickly seized by the environmentalist whackos as a means to curb development in the industrialized world and by radical socialists with dreams of using this "crisis" as a means of creating a socialist world government.

It will be interesting to see who funded these early global warming theorists and I'm sure names like George Soros will come up. It was easy to dupe people like Al Gore to be the standard bearer, but when the Kyoto treaty didn't pass the US Senate, despite Al Gore, the "crisis" had to whipped up further. It was then that government grants were directed to people like Mann and the East Anglia crowd for their "research" and we know the rest.

[SpinyNorman]

When your data cannot withstand scrutiny, it is bad science by definition. That is why Mann and his cronies hid or “lost” data, and suppressed contrary data.

They are corrupt frauds, and all of their science should be evaluated for validity. Or better, veracity.

[az_gila]

“It will be interesting to see who funded these early global warming theorists”

---

A good, and detailed history, here. It goes back to the 19th Century, but really picked up in the 60’s.

It doesn't mention the alternate camp of that era that predicted “Global Cooling” though...:^)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The funding bit for $$$ must have really started in the 70’s...