There is nothing like a collision with reality to destroy a lovely theory. There is something beautiful about a gang of facts murdering a thesis in a dark alley."Globull warming comes to mind", he went on. "Peak oil and the rent seeking green c***s are all of a piece."
It's mainly crass economic models I suffer from in my line of work, but there is indeed another rich seam of stupidity to be found in climate modelling. And here, courtesy of the frequently excellent Watts Up, is a superb essay on the flaws inherent in much of what we are assailed with on the weather front. An extract to encourage you to read further:
... a direct piece of engineering wisdom: If a system is not dominated by a few major feedback factors, it ain’t stable. And if it has a regions of stability [sic] then perturbing it outside those regions will result in gross instability, and the system will be short lived. Climate has been in real terms amazingly stable. For millions of years. It has maintained an average of about 282 degrees absolute +- about 5 degrees since forever.
So called ‘Climate science’ relies on net positive feedback to create alarmist views – and that positive feedback is nothing to do with CO2 allegedly: on the contrary it is a temperature change amplifier pure and simple. If such a feedback existed, any driver of temperature, from a minor change in the suns output, to a volcanic eruption must inevitably trigger massive temperature changes. But it simply never has. Or we wouldn’t be here to spout such nonsense.What excellent stuff!