Wednesday
Nov192014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A panel debate
Nov 19, 2014 Climate: Models I was in St Andrews yesterday, appearing at a discussion/debate for third year students in the Earth Sciences department. We were discussing the usefulness of climate models as policy tools (a subject I had suggested, as it involved the least work for me!) The event was hosted by Dr Tim Hill and putting a more mainstream view was Rob Wilson, although I think our views were probably too close to really create any fireworks. Rob's nuanced views on the climate debate also seemed to have rubbed off on his students, as although there was some close questioning at the end there was none of the outright hostility that one sometimes gets on these occasions.
Thanks to Rob and Tim for lunch and an interesting afternoon.
Reader Comments (12)
How nice to hear that the issue was discussed without the histrionics
Another indicator of reality and real science making inroads into what had become pure advocacy masquerading as science?
I do hope so.
Very easy for you. Given that climate models will never be able to predict the future climate and have not been validated, climate models should not be used as policy tools. Fullstop.
Mr. Bratby said it.
Attempts to model climate and the results thereof, can only ever be seen and digested as an interesting academic exercise. But formulating [real world] governmental policy, based on computer generated 'what if scenarios', is mankind - spinning off the stupidity scale.............
"the usefulness of climate models as policy tools"
And the conclusion was..?
When I was studying Earth Sciences, St Andrews had a good reputation, as perhaps even the second best department in the country. Good to see that they had kept up the standards.
Phillip Bratby: "Given that climate models will never be able to predict the future climate".
That's a quantum of energy too harsh. Given the rate of improvement in numerical atmospheric predictions, climate scientists have probably doubled the distance ahead they can reliably make daily forecasts in the last 30 years ( 10,000 iterations).
So, at the same rate of coming down the "learning curve"
in 10,000 years, the yearly forecast of climate will be twice as good as it is now.
In 100,000 years, the decadal forecast will be twice as good
and in 1,000,000 years, they'll be twice as good as the present forecasts are for a century ahead.
It's just a shame, that none of their forecasts so far have been right. Because being twice as good as "useless" ...
Good news. It is sad that we have to note such an event as being remarkable - such is the dismal burden that some of the people in, or having been in, such as CRU have cursed academia with on climate matters - but it is pleasing to see it nevertheless.
Doubting,
Second best you say? Who was best? East Angular? :)
Regards
Mailman
Good to know that students have re-assumed their default attitiude - cynical....
although I think our views were probably too close to really create any fireworks
So Bish are you saying that you think the climate models are useful and can predict future Climate ? because that's what Rob Wilson thinks. If you were too close for fireworks it would seem that you are a supporter of spending trillions on useless PSP4 software.
Am I right ? or have I misinterpreted your words.
The main point is that this was a proper geog/geol department not an ecology or environmental science department. I was at a local government seminar in mid Wales last summer, addressed by some well meaning people from the Welsh government on sustainability. When some unremarkable chap ( though still titled "professor") was asked a GCSE question on rainfall, he replied that he did not know the answer since he was an ecologist. Says it all really.
Do people think that academia should be any good. Look at the progress in IT and Comms in the last 20 years and it is hardly touched by academia. In contrast the IT I used as a climate modeller 20 years ago seems to have hardly changed. Academia needs to die in it's current living off public money form.