The models are crap. And all claims of catastrophe depend on the models. The models are crap because the models fail to grapple with the inadequacy of basic understanding of the system.
Peter Berenyi goes off:
The fundamental issue with computational climate models is an
epistemological one. Fitting multiple models, and computational ones of
high Kolmogorov complexity at that, to a single run of a unique instance
is not science, never was and never will be. The very paradigm of
climate modelling, as it is practiced in the last several decades is
flawed, and should be abandoned immediately.
The proper approach is to seek a simple theory, that fits many
experimental runs of multiple physical instances, but GCMs are as far
away from this requirement, as anything ever can get.
Therefore it should be realized, there is no such thing as “climate
science” as an autonomous field, independent of the general and as yet
unresolved problems of physics.
Non-equilibrium thermodynamics of complex systems (with a vast number
of non-linearly coupled degrees of freedom) in the presence of
significant radiant heat is one of the few areas of semi-classical
physics, where little progress is seen, basically because of
difficulties around proper lab models of such systems. That is, we still do not understand on a general level what’s going on.
But terrestrial climate is just one example of such systems. Why would anyone at her right mind expect to understand it better than the general case?
No comments:
Post a Comment