[Vision2020] INPC Forum, Climate Discussion: Possibly Contact J. Michael Scott, U of I Professor in CNR

[Ted Moffett]

You might consider the analysis of NASA's climate scientist James Hansen,
who minimizes the importance of computer models for an understanding of
climate science.  Read page 14, in the section titled "How Science Works,"
from the pdf document below, where Hansen rates computer models as third
most important for climate science:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf

--------------------------
Ted Moffett

On 4/23/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> In fact, regarding questions already posed in this thread, I suggested on
>> Vision2020 to Paul Rumelhart that he contribute his doubts about the
>> computer modeling of climate change to Realclimate.org, to scientists with
>> extensive expertise in mathematics and computer modeling of climate change.
>>  Paul never indicated, that I read on Vision2020, whether he posed his
>> questions or doubts on these issues to Realclimate.org.
>>
>
> I have not contributed my doubts about computer modeling to
> realclimate.org.  Oddly enough, I still feel justified in having an
> opinion on the subject.  I do see that they have two FAQs on the subject:
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/and
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/
> .
>
> One thing that jumps out at me and throws up a red flag is that the models
> are more correct if you average the various model outputs together.  This
> tells me that the models are still in their infancy, despite how extensive
> and sophisticated they appear to be.  It's a hard problem, hence my
> skepticism.
>
> Paul
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090424/d4c0e422/attachment-0001.html