“If general circulation models used by the climate-science community were engineering models (subject to validation and verification), they would have been in the dustbin some time ago.”, Mark Strauch, Livermore, California
On Making Climate Science More Objectively Scientific
The general circulation models used by the climate-science community are increasingly diverging from observed temperatures.
I hope Steven E. Koonin declines Ben Santer and Thomas Stocker’s invitation to join the Church of Warm (Letters, Oct. 2). The general circulation models used by the climate-science community are increasingly diverging from observed temperatures. If they were engineering models (subject to validation and verification), they would have been in the dustbin some time ago.
Climate-change advocates would improve their standing with the rest of us if they showed more willingness to talk to knowledgeable people who honestly disagree. With all the inconsistencies observed over the past 15 to 20 years after earlier dire warnings, it behooves the folk who are still trying to frighten us to make a better case for upending everything we know about living in today’s world.
I spent about a decade and a half doing computer modeling, and I know that precious few understand what computer modeling does and doesn’t do. I believe that it is great for deterministic calculations in probabilistic situations such as forecasting employee ages and retirements in the future. But computer modeling pretty much is useless in making real-world forecasts in the future unless the assumptions and calculations are simple arithmetic. For the most part, computer modelers make assumptions, use calculation procedures and then regurgitate the assumptions in a reworded form.
Donald E. Lewis
Science by consensus isn’t science. It’s politics!
Ralph S. Thomas