Gavin Schmidt - Models are Wrong

[Questioning_Climate]

According to Gavin Schmidt:

"All climate models are wrong, but some of them are useful, and by working more closely to answer the questions that are actually being posed by policymakers, we can make them more useful still."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/40528

The IOP is pushing climate change very strong in this issue ... I wonder why?

[JohnWho]

[quote author=Questioning_Climate link=topic=263.msg1847#msg1847 date=1254467468]
According to Gavin Schmidt:

"All climate models are wrong, but some of them are useful, ...
[/quote]

Especially if, while being wrong, it says what you want said!

[Mike Davis]

The main reason that models are worthless is due to the historic records they use or attempt to replicate. If the historic records are corrupted then the models are attempting to replicate corruption not reality. By using years if data the regional climate models get better at forcasting patterns for short term future events. Due to corruption in surface data then the outcome of the models are no better than flipping a coin to decide what is coming. The better the data/input the better the output and models need to be trained to reality not reality adjusted to fit models.

[mcclane]

economists can't even predict with certainty how the economy will behave next week, and the factors contributing to an economy is far less than predicting the climate.  I can't see how the greenies can put so much emphasis on those 'models' and claim that it is 100% correct.

[Sunsettommy]

Comment from the link:

Quote:Models which are developed with a political agenda, and are used for political purposes are neither accurate, nor useful. I am sorry to say, but I believe that a very large percentage of the published climate modelling results fall into that category.

So very true.

[Richard111]

Gavin Schmidt is getting a lot of publicity.

Real Climate’s Gavin Schmidt: A Foot in His Global Warming Mouth by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists

[John L]

(10-02-2009 12:26 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Comment from the link:

Quote:Models which are developed with a political agenda, and are used for political purposes are neither accurate, nor useful. I am sorry to say, but I believe that a very large percentage of the published climate modelling results fall into that category.

So very true.

So, why is is biting the hand(s) that feed him? Is it really nothing more than just gaining attention?

[Questioning_Climate]

Gavin Schmidt knows full well that the computer models (GCM) he uses are not capable of determining future climates and the growing divergence between them and real observations is concerning him. He is attempting to reinforce/maintain belief in the models in order to preserve his funding and status.

His statement is an admission that, from the scientific point of view, his models have little merit, but as a political tool they are valuable. Since these models are one of the cornerstones of AGW and now known to be only useful for political purposes, this statement confirms the view that the world is facing a social-political threat, NOT a physical one.

[Richard111]

I read this at WUWT:

Quote:kwik says:
June 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm
If they adjust down the X-factor a bit, it will be colder in the NASA models too;

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/d...edited.pdf

which lead me to this:

Quote:Schoolboy Errors in NASA’s High School Textbooks

Trenberth’s and Schmidt’s lack of the wherewithal to provide a convincing calculation of Earth’s energy budget is further glaringly exposed by NASA’s Education Department which publishes high school textbooks, ‘Energy Social Studies; Investigating the Climate System: A Balancing Act’ for 9-12th graders.
In the publication is a graph that contradicts the Kiehl-Trenberth/Schmidt energy graph but clearly agrees with the numbers applied by climate skeptics and the original Apollo moon mission.
I pointed out the confusion to Dr. Judith Curry who responded, “Everybody would agree that the simple black body planetary energy balance model is a drastic oversimplification, it is used only for illustrative purposes.”

Check out the graph linked in the quote above.

[Derek]

So, that's

Climate models are bunkum. - Gavin Schmidt.

Radiation budgets are bunkum. - Judith Curry.

Has anyone said the "known physics of CO2" is bunkum as well yet. ?

I think "they" are catching on, maybe "they" read this forum as guests.....

BTW - I am now of the firm opinion that "mainstream" sceptics "appeals to authority" are now shown as bunkum as well.

[Mike Davis]

The NASA school climate text book was from 2003 using work from before that date and using what was known about climate before that date. By ingesting Magic Mushrooms they have reached a new understanding of climate!
Gavin will mention that the models are wrong because he wants more funding for creating better models! As long as he bases his model input on garbage science his results can be no better. He needs to admit he is attempting to build on guesses.
Judith Curry wants to defend academic practices of sloppy science when the academics are supposed to be training practical scientists so should have more stringent standards than those needed in the real world. In the industry I was involved in the people who output the greatest quality were the initial trainers and the ones with the highest quantity did the final training and the work. But the quality people were also the inspectors. Those who understood how the systems worked were the maintenance people!
You do not have to understand a process to teach or produce because you are only building with previous knowledge. You do need to understand processes to fix problems. Of course the teachers and the installers do not realize they do not understand WHY!
Judith Curry with her attitude should not be teaching future scientists!