[nabla9]

Climate modeling is one of those areas where debatable assumptions are relatively small.

Existing climate models are really good. They are used with little modification to correctly model climate of Mars, Venus, tidal locked exoplanet and previous historical eras on Earth. You just set the parameters and they pretty much produce the climate that exists on those planets or time periods. Yet constant shade thrown at them.

[qbaqbaqba]

> previous historical eras

Do we have global data for historical eras?

[audessuscest]

> They are used with little modification to correctly model climate of Mars, Venus, tidal locked exoplanet and previous historical eras on Earth. You just set the parameters and they pretty much produce the climate that exists o

why are they wrong all the time then ?

[DagAgren]

They are not. They are very accurately tracking the current changes in climate.

[briantakita]

However they are not able to accurately forecast solar activity & climate into the future, making them need to frequently readjust their models to fit the data of the past & present. i.e. Curve Fitting.

[DagAgren]

Their entire job is to forecast climate into the future, and they do that well. Solar activity is an input, and is obviously not predicted. Your comment is gibberish.

[briantakita]

> Solar activity is an input, and is obviously not predicted. Your comment is gibberish.

If you can't predict certain known inputs, and theres unknown unknowns, how can your model have predictive accuracy? If you believe that the model is accurate, what makes the model falsifiable? One of the indicators of a pseudoscience is nonfalsifiability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

[sonofgod]

A model that can't predict inputs can provide a mapping from any given inputs to a predicted value. We can then, after the fact, demonstrate whether the actual value is equal to the predicted value (i.e. within expected error bars). Repeated failure to predict at the expected probability of your error bars would falsify the model. (i.e. commit to what your model is, then run it with now known inputs after the fact)

It's possible some of these inputs may be of the form "the Gulf Stream continues to operate within historically observed parameters", i.e. we make no attempt to claim accuracy for the model outside of its studied conditions. That's fine: there are a large number of accurate models which are known to have breakdown conditions.

It is literally impossible for any model to be robust to unknown unknowns. All we can do is endeavour to drag them into the light and become known unknowns, then attempt to quantify them as known knowns. Sadly, our ability to experiment repeatedly in the same conditions with the environment is deeply limited, in a way much akin to astronomy.

[briantakita]

> They are used with little modification to correctly model climate of Mars, Venus, tidal locked exoplanet and previous historical eras on Earth.

Never heard that claim. Could you back it up?

Side note. I did a calculation of PV=nRT on Venus which has a 96.5% (965000PPM) CO2 atmospheric concentration. Assuming RT is close to equal on Venus & Earth, P~T.

Venus has a surface temp/pressure of 7.96 K/bar vs 287.15 K/bar on Earth. If Venus had a runaway greenhouse effect, the K/bar on Venus should be significantly higher than on Earth. Would love more feedback & critique on this calculation, particularly a relevant PVT diagram for CO2.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mn4yuh2TUKWeMtMpZkDN...

----

Heres a PVT phase diagram for CO2 but hopefully theres better ones wrt Venus. Note that theres a bend in the liquid/gas border. 1 to 10 bar has a lower increase of K/bar than for the 10 to 90 bar region.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-phase-diagram-for-CO2_...