Beckwith replies it's almost a battle
between climate modelers, like David Archer, and researchers with observations on the ground, like Shakhova and here Russian counterparts.
Not exact matches
It's for this reason that it's important to understand the differences in responses
between geoengineering experiments, said Ben Kravitz, a
climate modeler at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory who helps run the international Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project.
A section of the piece on an emerging disconnect
between climate model projections of warming and observations makes it clear that
climate modelers have plenty of work to do.
[UPDATE 3/6, 1 p.m.:] Isaac Held, a
climate modeler at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., responded today with some caution about seeking relationships
between the ocean and atmospheric changes around the tropics, and also drawing conclusions about their relationship to global warming.
The disagreement with
climate modelers arises because, first they do not understand error propagation and so reject its diagnosis, and second they don't understand the difference
between a physical error statistic and an energetic perturbation, and so treat the statistic as though it impacts the model expectation values — in this case air temperature.
Based on the error range compounded annually,
climate modelers are somewhere
between childish and delusionally psychotic.
These
climate modelers think that «±» error bars imply the model itself is oscillating (liable to jump)
between the error bar extremes.
The US CLIVAR Greenland Ice Sheet - Ocean Interactions Working Group was formed to foster and promote interaction
between the diverse oceanographic, glaciological, atmospheric and
climate communities, including
modelers and field and data scientists within each community, interested in glacier / ocean interactions around Greenland, to advance understanding of the process and ultimately improve its representation in
climate models.
«But integrated assessment
modelers never model feedback
between the amount of
climate change and economic growth,» write the authors, «and would have an extremely difficult time doing so if they tried,» given the uncertainty of
climate impacts.
This total denial of easily observed reality is a sad commentary on the computer
climate modelers, who often seem to be verging on the psychotic... and as the story goes, what's the difference
between a neurotic AGW supporter, a psychotic AGW supporter, and Al Gore?