Freemand Dyson has another objection to climate modelling: it does not take into account the way climate interacts with biomass. Simple calculations show that even small changes in global biomass absorb huge amounts of atmospheric CO2.
How does that mesh with the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 50+ years? I mean it seems like a simple test if the rate of absorption is slower than production then the concentration increases which it has.
PS: There is huge and then there is HUGE, once you start talking about millions of tuns of a gas it's hard to get an idea of scale.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r...