Climate Model Hubris, by Don Dears

Source:

https://ddears.com/2021/12/17/climate-model-hubris/

"The Wall Street Journal, in its section The Future of Everything, published a full page analysis concerning the problem of too much data.

The lead paragraph said:
    “Scientists are scrambling to store and analyze a surge of meticulous measurements of the planet.

These efforts will inform policy makers across the globe.”

In short, there is an explosion in the amount of data being generated by all the new satellite’s, ocean buoys, etc.,

measuring temperatures, soil moisture, ocean currents, air quality, cloud cover, and hundreds of other phenomena on Earth and in its atmosphere.

The WSJ article predicted that there would be an increase from 83 petabytes of data today, to 650 petabytes of data as the result of all the new measuring devices now in place.

One petabyte of data can hold thousands of full length movies.

Suresh Vannan, NASA, said,
   “Now we can truly do climate studies because now we have observations to precisely say how weather trends have changed and are changing.” 

The article said,
n n n “Earth’s future may depend in part on whether their efforts measure up.”

But,  are the right things being measured to determine the cause of climate change and global warming?

All the data in the world won’t solve any problem if the wrong things are being measured.

It’s GIGO, on steroids.

Computer models that only use data from the Earth are missing at least half the picture.

What about the sun?
The fact is, scientists know very little about how the sun works, yet it is the source of all our energy.

The book, Nature’s Third Cycle, the story of Sun Spots, by Choudhur, deals with how the sun works, and exposes that we really don’t know very much about its inner workings.

The book, The Neglected Sun, by Vahrenholt and Luning, describe the many things about the sun that are being ignored.

Accurate data is important to any scientific endeavor, and obtaining it should be applauded.

But care should be taken in how it is used.

Computer programs using massive amounts of incomplete data are not the answer.

The hubris displayed by the WSJ article is breathtaking."