Climate Change: Are the Models Good Enough?

One of the key tools in foreseeing the effects of any changes in global temperature are the climate models that are used by scientists to predict how the climate will look a number of years ahead.  The central importance of such models is clear.  Indeed the whole of the argument about the devastation that global warming will bring is solely based on such models.  But are these models good enough?  Do they really predict the future?
The efficacy of climate modelling depends on two key things.  First are the data that are fed into the models accurate and reliable and secondly are the underpinning assumptions and algorithms sufficiently logical, robust and comprehensive to produce reliable conclusions.  The trouble is the world is such a complicated place with so many interactions that even our best models can only produce very simplistic conclusions.  Unfortunately we simply don't know enough about how the World ticks.
Today the Economist publishes an excellent article Errors of Omission that tackles these exact points.  Easy to read and understand (like all Economist articles - what a joy they are!), the article points out some of the difficulties we have in relying on such models that take no account of geopolitical and diplomatic trends, for example.  The conclusion is that the models must become even more comprehensive if they are to be of more use.  We know from our own experience how difficult it is to get a totally reliable forecast of what the weather is going to do.  Forecasting the global impact of a change in temperature is therefore a big ask!

Inconvenient truth

Inconvenient truth: "The earth may be cooling down, says new research"

This is really interesting. It has become the accepted doctrine over the past five years that climate change is occurring making the earth warmer, threatening livelihoods; that it is as a result of global warning caused by carbon dioxide emissions produced by the excessive use of carbon fuels (and the odd farting cow or two).

Disagreement with this has been described as heresy and those with alternative views have been labelled "carbon deniers". Why such a virulent response to legitimate inquiry? Well politicians, lobbyists and the corporate world have discovered that there are votes to be won and money to be made by adhering to this line. Absolute belief in the proposition has become rampant political correctness. Research grants have been allocated on the basis of the extent to which the research will support the fundamental thesis. Much is now riding on the proposition of global warming. All of this is true: it is an unbiased account of what has happened. (Please note that I don't have the faintest idea whether the cause and effect - carbon dioxide, global warming - is right or not).

Now we hear that a leading climatologist has modelled the future and concluded that well, actually, the earth is likely to get a bit cooler for a while and then warm up a bit. .

Those of us with long memories know that the weather seems to be changing - even perhaps the climate. But whether it is a result of carbon driven global warming cannot be taken as an absolute truth. Could it be that the changes are part of a natural cycle that we haven't yet understood? After all the Earth has been very hot (by our standards) in the past and it has also been very cold. Is there a meta cycle occurring and if so what is driving it? Or is the current doctrine absolutely and indisputably correct?

Against this background Professor Latif's work is quite important. Science works by falsification of hypothesis based on evidence. Let us hope that this latest piece of research helps to shed light rather than heat on the issues and is not steam rollered by the juggernaut of political correctness. Because if we have actually got it wrong...well it just doesn't bear thinking about.

Back