Climate models are validated and checked on historical climate data. With these climate models it is aimed to predict the climate change induced by human actions. But is this a valid procedure? You take data from natural processes to validate a model which is aimed to investigate a not natural (human induced), most likely unique event in earth history which is not covered by any natural processes in the past. Does this lead to erroneous results?
In my opinion historical climate data can support somehow the validity of the dynamical based models; nevertheless, it is not a proof. First of all the theoretical underlying mechanism and causalities should be known, proved, and investigated well and then some other steps like the relevant parametrisation of that phenomenon, appropriate modules, etc. By adding each 'ad hoc' parameter, we expect more uncertainty.
In my opinion historical climate data can support somehow the validity of the dynamical based models; nevertheless, it is not a proof. First of all the theoretical underlying mechanism and causalities should be known, proved, and investigated well and then some other steps like the relevant parametrisation of that phenomenon, appropriate modules, etc. By adding each 'ad hoc' parameter, we expect more uncertainty.
It is very possible, the models learns from the natural data available to predict the future
Natural data alone can often leads to error in conclusion, though it can support the conclusion to some extend. It's important to note that anthropogenic processes are part of the system, therefore, data from this source is necessary for a valid conclusion.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change