#6 Debating Republican Disconnect From Climate Science - Model substance + contrarian scientists

After my dialogue with EM I share links to information relating to the substance of climate models, then a hard look at some renowned scientists who have become climate science contrarians for hire, Seitz, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy.  

_____________________________________________________________ 

EM writes:  I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time.  I’m sure you’ll give me the “bull shit!” response, but this is not at all a bullshit statement.

___________________________________________

What you have proffered is feigned agreement with the obvious.  What makes it feel disingenuous is your “we don’t fully understand” - That argument can be applied to anything and everything (except religion with it’s blinding self-certainties, although that’s about the landscape of the human mind and ego rather than physical realities.  -  Or would you disagree?).

To retain a bit of added truthiness, you toss in “long period of time” - What’s that mean?  How long?  What uncertainties?  EM, can you explain why do those uncertainties concern you more than what’s known for certain?  Simply implying that there might be game changing uncertainties out there without offering anything is what could politely be called disingenuous.

_____________________________________________________________

EM writes:  Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new and we certainly can and will improve our holistic knowledge in the subject in the coming months, years, and decades. 

___________________________________________

Nearly two centuries is not relatively new!  I’ve already addressed this misleading Republican meme with a list of climate science milestones: 

4. Debating Republican Disconnect From - Climate Science History

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/01/4-gop-disconnect-climate-science-history.html

Beyond that, I don’t think EM appreciates how consistent the long development of climate science has been.  I learned about the fundamentals more than forty years ago and nothing has changed radically.  Refinements of understand, sure, non-stop, and sometimes startling “why didn’t I think of that” surprises.  But, at the end of the day, it’s all been amazingly consistent and new pieces keep fitting into the whole of our understanding with logical consistency and even harmony.  

If I’m mistaken, or you think I’m misleading, show me.

_____________________________________________________________

Prof. Inez Fung: "Anatomy of a Climate Model" the video

Climate models are constantly being misrepresented and the public has been sold impossible expectations by folks more interested in power-politics than learning about our planet.

Climate models are tools.  Tools to help scientists understand dynamics in action.  No one has ever pretended they could accurately prediction the future.  They inform us about dynamics and trends.  We human minds need to figure out the rest.  

One of the slickest, and sickest, tricks folks like McIntyre, Sen. Inhofe, Morano, Heartland, and pals have pulled off, is misleading the public into believing that if climate models weren't perfect they deserve ridicule.  

Sadly the folks that attack climate models the most, are least interested in learning about them.  But, there must be people who do want to learn, 
I tell myself.

That is why I'm sharing this excellent talk by Professor Inez Fung.  

Anatomy of a Climate Model: How Robust are Climate Projections?

Presented by Prof. Inez Fung, UC Berkeley.

GoogleTechTalks  |  February 8, 2011  |  55:30 minutes

The first successful numerical weather forecast was made on the ENIAC (with fewer than 10 words memory) in 1950.  This talk traces the development of atmospheric General Circulation Models (GCMs) for weather forecasting, to Global Climate Models (GCMs) and Earth System Models (ESMs) to illustrate the guts and gore of the huge codes.  

If we cannot predict the weather beyond 2 weeks, what do we mean by climate projections for the next century?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Professor Inez Fung takes us on a fast paced tour of the complexities of climate models.  Along the way, she conveys the why and how of scientists figuring out the challenges of describing our global heat distribution engine mathematically.

Professor Inez Fung is speaking to a university audience so perhaps at moments she talks just at, or barely above, the heads of us regular folks.  Still, for those familiar with the basics of the science and a curiosity to learn more, you'll find this expert's talk fascinating and worth paying attention to.  

As part of my own learning process for especially good talks I make a rough time signature log for later reference and so I'll share that also.