Climate Scientists Encounter Limits of Computer Models, Bedeviling Policy | Hacker News Reader

Climate Scientists Encounter Limits of Computer Models, Bedeviling Policy

wsj.com

5 pointshammock8 comments

The key word: TUNING. Every climate model has tons of tunable parameters, many of which are not from first principles. They are empirical, observed some years ago over some remote locations, but now applied globally as the truth.

https://archive.fo/OYyt4

Truly bizarre conclusions.

Convergence on a model isn’t scientific method, it’s heterodoxy. People rightly criticize economics when this happens, but climatology is exempt.

I’m increasingly skeptical of adoption of methods that monotonically increase doomsday predictions.

"Skeptics have scoffed at climate models for decades, saying they overstate the hazards of carbon dioxide. But a growing body of research shows many climate models have been uncannily accurate. For one recent study, scientists at NASA, the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, Calif., and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology evaluated 17 models used between 1970 and 2007 and found most predicted climate shifts were “indistinguishable from what actually occurred.”

Isn't this just the green jelly bean test?[1] If you have hundreds of models, won't some of them line up well just by random chance?

[1]https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/882:_Significant

They picked the models and found that they all worked.

They were funded by climate deniers who expected to disprove all of them. They discovered that they actually do work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Institute

Who picked the models?

They picked the ones used by the IPCC. Their job was to show that the models were wrong. They showed the opposite.

The guys who run the Breakthrough Institute are still big time climate deniers.

Your link doesn't say that at all.

And the IPCC model didn't predict the "warming hiatus" of the mid-2010's. Which apparently now never happened?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com