Thursday
Dec102009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Gavin says the uncertainties are huge
Dec 10, 2009 Climate Apart from repeating the spin about "hiding the decline", the most interesting thing in this CNN interview of Gavin Schmidt and John Christy is that Gavin agrees with Christy that our uncertainties about the climate system are huge.
I'm struggling to equate this with the various IPCC statements about it being "very likely" that observed increases in temperatures are due to increases in carbon dioxide. How can you speak with such certainty about a system you don't understand?
Reader Comments (7)
Here is an article I came across by Gavin Schmidt "Wrong but useful" dated Oct 1, 2009
Here is what he says: "All climate models are wrong, but some of them are useful, and by working more closely to answer the questions that are actually being posed by policymakers, we can make them more useful still."
Every single one of them are wrong! but useful to answer questions for policy makers.
What do you make of that?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/40528
It's astonishing how this is playing out. The fact alone that CNN is actually discussing this should tell you something about how scared the 'consensus scientists' must be.
To hear Schmidt defend "hide the decline" is speaking volumes. The best thing would have been to just admit Jones was out of order when he used that phrase. But if they did that, then Jones, Mann & Briffa go down, all their work goes down with it, all proxy studies from them or based on them go, and then all that is left is present warming which is entirely within natural variability.
It just shows how flimsy their case is, and how even a tiny crack can bring it all crashing down.
"Here is what he says: "All climate models are wrong, but some of them are useful, and by working more closely to answer the questions that are actually being posed by policymakers, we can make them more useful still."
Schmidt literally stole that quote from George E. Box who said : ""All models are wrong, but some are useful."
As well as the point about uncertainty, did I correctly hear Schmidt agree that it had been warmer in a previous period?
By the way, I had formed the impression previously that Christy did not regard himself as an out and out sceptic. However, he did not contradict the presenter's description of him in those terms.
Modelling: there is nothing wrong with using models as a tool, even when you know they have their limitations. The problem comes when you depend on them to determine global policies potentially affecting entire populations. Models should be a means to an end, but they appear to have become the tail that is wagging the dog.
Reminds me of a UK Met Office drone being interviewed after several failed seasonal predictions. They said that they knew that these predictions were unreliable but they made them to help local authorities to prepare.
What use it was encouraging local authorities to spend all their scarce money and resources on being prepared to combat what was likely to be the wrong weather was, of course, something the interviewer didn't ask.
That Wolf Blitzer would even ask "Do you believe that man is playing a role in global warming?" shows you how far the debate and the MSM have moved in just the few weeks since the CRUtape dump.
And yes, MikeE, Gavin did say that the Cretaceous was warmer. That and an earlier statement by Gavin in this interview, and his subsequent statement in this interview about natural forest fires not implying that arson does not exist, make me think that the warmists' stance is shifting to, "Just because there is natural variability does not mean that man isn't causing some of it." Which is sort of a non-sequiter when it comes to deciding whether our role matters or not, come to think of it. But he may think that no one will think that, of course.
A damning illustration of how far from the real world are Gavin Schmidt and his fellow-travellers! Still, I am sure they will all find solace in their own company when the truth finally emerges.