Overshoot and Undershoot

Overshoot and Undershoot“. Willis Eschenbach guest posts on Anthony Watts’ blog, saying: when a scientist starts talking about “consistency” between observations and model results, I check my wallet. Now that’s an impartial mind at work.

His theory seems to be that the Earth’s temperature “overshoots” in response to volcanic inputs, but the contemptible climate models don’t. Which means that any undesirable temperature increases, which aren’t happening, will magically reverse themselves. Somehow. Of course like any good denialist he has an Excel spreadsheet to prove it.

Willis’ “observation” is that the Pinatubo eruption caused a dip in global temperatures for about two years, but when temperatures recovered they “overshot” the pre-eruption temperature for a similar period of time.

So Willis;

  • Exactly how does temperature rise higher than the initial state without more energy? Shall we whisper “global warming?”
  • Were there really no other climate influences other than Pinatubo over the time period in question?
  • How do you honestly show a cyclic pattern from half of an imagined cycle?
  • Does the fact that cars can have cruise control really mean that the Earth must have one too?

Enjoy the praise of the ignorant, Willis.

6 thoughts on “Overshoot and Undershoot

  1. I had been wondering what Willis was up to recently.

    He was supposed to be off somewhere, proving Lindzen’s Iris effect.

    Apparently, not. Back, empty-handed.

  2. Sometimes Eschenbach writes something reasonably intelligent, and then he pulls boners like this one. D-K in full blossom.

  3. I ask because I’m genuinely curious; what has Willy written that has ever made a lick of sense? As far as I can tell, he has no understanding of what science is or how to analyze data, but claims to be a better scientist than climatologists like Mann. The Frank-Dunning effect in action, as far as I know.

  4. Steve Easterbrook’s recent blogpost on “Validating Climate Models” is more interesting:

    “…There is no such thing as “the model”. The body of code that constitutes a modern climate model actually represents an enormous number of possible models, each corresponding to a different way of configuring that code for a particular run. Furthermore, this body of code isn’t a static thing. The code is changed on a daily basis, through a continual process of experimentation and model improvements…”

    “Summary: It is a mistake to think that validation is a post-hoc process to be applied an individual “finished model” to ensure it meets some criteria for fidelity to the real world. In reality, there is no such thing as a finished model, just many different snapshots of a large set of model configurations, steadily evolving as the science progresses. And fidelity of a model to the real world is impossible to establish. In reality, climate models are tools to probe our current theories about how climate processes work…”

    [Thanks for your contribution to the debunking! – Ben]

  5. when temperatures recovered they “overshot” the pre-eruption temperature

    That’s funny. Reminds me of the claim that, there is no global warming, the earth is merely “recovering” from the ice age.

  6. Ah, good old Willis, the man to whom 1+1 always equals 3 and Michael Crichton’s total science fiction disconnected from any reality in this dimension, is real.

    What next, will he have us believing that the spectacular Crab Nebula Supernova light show of 1054, was the prime cause of the MWP period?(facepalm)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s