Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
... I believe that Turtle's dismissal of climate models based purely on the lack of data concerning underwater volcanism is a bit over the top. I agree with Turtle that we need to understand this better, but I disagree that this invalidates the models we have presently. Sure, the models are flawed. Is that not intrinsic to any model? (hence it is a model, and not the real thing)
The science of climatology, and particularly those that build/test/run climate models, should not be dismissed so easily. It is astonishing to see the progress in this field.
The models will never be perfect, but neither are we.
|
I have never based my skepticism of the models purely on underwater volcanism, and in fact my skepticism of the models lies primarily in the mathematics of complex systems. The argument that just because the models have improved that they are sufficient for basing political and economic actions intended to influence the climate is vacuous. If modeling complex systems is as accurate as you imply, such models would be making billions for people trading at the stock exchange. What kind of improvement is going from very bad to moderately bad?
