by Indur M. Goklany
Phil Jones famously said:
Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones 8/7/2004
Today, we have an example:
“[T]his is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models.” – Peter Gleick at Forbes; emphasis added. 9/2/2011
Last time I checked it was necessary and sufficient to fit the observations, but “fits the models”!?!?
So let’s ponder a few questions.
- 1. Do any AOGCMs satisfy all the observations? Are all or any, for example, able to reproduce El Ninos and La Ninas, or PDOs and AMOs? How about the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation for any given year? In fact, according to both the IPCC and the US Climate Change Science Program, they don’t. Consider, for example, the following excerpts:
“Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days).” (IPCC, AR4WG1: 601; emphasis added).
“Climate model simulation of precipitation has improved over time but is still problematic. Correlation between models and observations is 50 to 60% for seasonal means on scales of a few hundred kilometers.” (CCSP 2008:3).
“In summary, modern AOGCMs generally simulate continental and larger-scale mean surface temperature and precipitation with considerable accuracy, but the models often are not reliable for smaller regions, particularly for precipitation.” (CCSP 2008: 52).
This, of course, raises the question: Are AOGCMs, to quote Gleick, “part of the scientific literature and knowledge”? Should they be?
- 2. What if one model’s results don’t fit the results of another? And they don’t—if they did, why use more than one model and why are over 20 models used in the AR4? Which models should be retained and which ones thrown out? On what basis?
- 3. What if a model fits other models but not observations (see Item 1)? Should we retain those models?
I offer these rhetorical questions to start a discussion, but since I’m on the move these holidays, I’ll be unable to participate actively.
Reference:
CCSP (2008). Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Bader D.C., C. Covey, W.J. Gutowski Jr., I.M. Held, K.E. Kunkel, R.L. Miller, R.T. Tokmakian and M.H. Zhang (Authors)]. Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Washington, D.C., USA, 124 pp.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the bird book and the bird disagree,believe the bird.
I see that several people here answered your question, but generally only in the instance of climate models. Here I try a little broader scope.
1. Emotional investment. Models summarize, in a simple way, something that is complicated, and something we do not understand. We hope they capture the essence of the phenomena. When a model appears to do so by virtue of powerful explanation or agreement with observations or surprisingly accurate predictions, then the proponent(s) of such a model “fall in love”, approximately. The emotional investment that comes with discovery clouds people’s judgement and leads them to think the model is real and not approximate. As the old ballad goes, “They aren’t seeing things too clear and they’re too far gone to hear.”
2. Authority. The computer enters here. The computer makes no trivial errors, has no emotion, and therefore is an objective arbiter of truth. At least this is true for people who do not, themselves, program, and who do not recognize how utterly the computer is at the mercy of those who program it. Anyone who has seen how the IT and accounting groups gain control of any organization ought to be aware of the magic of computers and printed output.
3. We are becoming conditioned, culturally, to look to experts as the authority on all complicated subjects. This conditioning I believe explains some awful trends, such as the steady drift back toward statism, of which reliance on climate models is but a symptom. Models results are the snake oil that experts sell. Thus, people are being conditioned by culture to accept models results over observation.
LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:17 pm
To point out the obvious. Being a computer scientist does not give you special insight into either climate modelling or the politics of the UN as it relates to the IPCC.
Your IPCC beliefs derive from what you have read on your own personal favorite Internet blogs. The stories you read are made up by people just as knowledgable as yourself.
Just because you like what you are told does not make it the truth.
So you work for the UN, then?
Nothing shows the performance of Global climate models better than the historical archive at the NHC, formerly the Tropical Prediction Center – TPC but they changed their name, and probably with good reason. If you look at the track changes of our latest storm of concern, Irene, you can easily see that the models could not even predict a track 5-days in advance. The movie is here – at the start it was going to hit South Florida:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2011/graphics/al09/loop_5W.shtml
And these climate model people want us to believe that they can model the Earth’s climate years into the future with any kind of certainty? Right….
Best,
J.
LazyTeenager says: September 3, 2011 at 4:44 pm
[So a climate model is like a house made out of bricks.]
Bricks of Fudge!
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
In the beginning there was data.
data = data;
Hmmm, not so good, lets loose that high bit in the middle.
data = data – medieval warming period;// (,-0.25,-0.3,0);
That’s better; now bring it up above the current decline.
data = data + unobserved warming; // (1.2,1.7)
Better still; how about a wild increase to really stir thing up. To infinity and beyond.
data = data + imagination; // (2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6)
No, they will never go for that.
data = data * 0.75;
Yea, with the Teams help I can get this published.
Computer models have a role in science. If you make a model that embodies your theory of a complex system, you can use the computer model to identify things to measure to refute your theory. A scientist should ALWAYS design experiments that will show the flaws in their own theories. We can never gain a better understanding of the universe if we allow an intellectual elite to pronounce “the way it is” and the rest of us stand around yelling “yea, verily”. A model can show where to apply measuring resources. Other than that it is pretty well useless except to produce wall art.
Isn’t “model” just another word for ” theory”?.
I’ve been reading climate blogs for two years and actively seeking an answer go the question, “Why do people trust models.”
Adam,
I worked with computers for 30 years and happen to have a degree in psychology.
I often saw how people have an irrational faith and belief in what computers tell them. To the point the computer was trusted more than individuals. Its a curious phenomena that I have never seen an adequate explanation for.
Isn’t “model” just another word for ” theory”?.
I’d agree with this statement.
However, for a theory to be scientific it must be well articulated. Such that others than the framers of the theory can derived specific predictions from it.
The climate models are not well articulated. That is, there is no clear explanation of how they work, and others can not derive predictions from them (model simulation runs don’t count). And hence they are not scientific, in the sense of scientific theories.
I remember when I first became aware of the GCM’s in the late ’70’s. I gave some fellow grad students information about combustion products, and later learned they used it to feed CO2 estimates into their models. When I asked them about their conclusions, I couldn’t get satisfactory answers to how CO2 actually could cause warming, what had caused warming in the past, and why weren’t they looking at the sun. All I could conclude was the the models were a PR stunt to impress an illiterate and innumerate public with computers, and get them to believe in AGW. This seems to still be their purpose.
The only thing that seems certain is that Climate Science isn’t Rocket Science. If it were, Climate Scientists would understand enough thermodynamics and fluid mechanics to realize that CO2 can’t have the impact they claim.
Models are only provisional. Niels Bohr devised his model of the atom in order to explain observations made by various other scientists investigating the structure of atoms or spectral lines. His model worked very well for hydrogen but not for larger atoms. It was a significant step in the development of quantum theory but, as Bohr himself realised, models and theories had to fit the observations – not the other way round.
Perhaps Dr. Gleick would like to have another recent paper withdrawn where the models and observations do not match:
“…all models may be missing some fundamental climate process such as a nonlinear response to
forcing. As discussed by Santer et al. [2005, 2008] it is not clear what this could be or why models and observations agree on short timescales but potentially differ on long time scales, given the same fundamental physical processes. There may be natural processes that modulate
behavior on decadal timescales that are not captured by any climate models. But with highly uncertain observations it remains most likely that residual observational biases
underlie the disagreements with the models. However, if the models lack a basic process, then it urgently needs to be understood and incorporated”.
Should I notify Dr. Santer of this new standard or would Dr. Gleick like to take care of this personally?
There is a common tactic used by the warmist apologists and attack dogs to equate criticism of the climate models to criticism of all models used in science and engineering. Quite obviously, these are not the same thing.
Lazy Teenager is a classic Cloned Troll for AGW.
In fact they may even be a Computer program set up to repeat the words others use and find some supposedly clever piece of debunking in a database.
I could write a program to do just that.
You know the old saying “Don’t feed the Trolls”.
Richard M says:
September 4, 2011 at 8:11 am
Myrrh says:
September 4, 2011 at 5:51 am
That’s all the models are, opinions expressed in mathematical language, passing themselves off as authoritative.
This is the key. Models are simply a translation of a written language “opinion” (abstract idea) to a computer language. Not really different that translating from English to Russian. The ONLY difference is we can now view how the “opinion” performs in time. That is it. There is NOTHING special about the code that is incorporated in a model. And as such, the models are no better than the “opinion” of the person/s who developed the model.
I actually think lazyteen understands this at some level. His problem is that he BELIEVEs the “opinion” is actually the same as a fact. Or, at least very close to a fact. I think most here think that “opinion” is nothing more than a educated guess. So, it really gets back to whether the “opinion” is valid.
I suspect that most skeptics would accept models based on verifiable facts. Of course, that means observable data. The warmist contingent appears to be willing accept that the verification is unneeded because of the dangers we might face by inaction. But this position is nonsensical because it’s only based on an “opinion”. There are any number of potential problems that could affect humanity. To choose one over many other well known problems (like mass starvation in Africa) and spend billions of dollars on it is almost insane.
And the “dangers of inaction” have been hyped so strongly that unless one has either a grounding in science that works or a mind that questions (I’m not a scientist but got intrigued when I discovered there were arguments about it), it makes it difficult to see that this is part of the ‘sell tactics’ by those promoting AGW.
Kevin Kilty said: “We are becoming conditioned, culturally, to look to experts as the authority on all complicated subjects.”
I don’t think it’s a recent conditioning, but in our nature. I think that comes from a inherent trait to form co-operative units; family, small hunter/gather groups, larger farming communities. We’re not unique in the animal kingdom for our co-operative nature, but it is one of the great defining character traits of mankind. In that, people have roles, things we’re good at, better than others, and one very important was the role of healer. The information still extant on the healing properties of plants peculiar to specific areas and known to the indigenous peoples and the plants world wide that are known for the same properties is testament to a wide-spread knowledge base about these things over a great many centuries. When that becomes a huge amount of information and the social group larger, or groups associating, the role of healer appears, someone who has a natural bent for the subject and can devote time to learning and practicing. We’re naturally accepting of such roles because we can appreciate that others have skills which we can benefit from because we don’t have the same skill or the time for them.
I recall there have been studies on the ‘white coat = authority’, and when the white coat of the healing arts came into general use, in the creation of hospitals, the scientist donning it has naturally stepped into that role, trusted authority. Unless we have good reason to stop trusting, we don’t. We don’t question it, ok, I’m giving myself as an example here, I had no reason to question AGW – mostly because I had other things I was doing I didn’t get involved in any of it. But I think that’s part of our nature, we’re used to delegating whole areas of expertise to others..
Also, we’re willing to co-operate even to our own detriment, the unselfish gene.. Rather a lot of our history appears to be the conflicts created by those manipulating these genes, and I think in great part this is what is happening here. We trust the models, because we’re constantly being told they are trustworthy, by people we take as read are trustworthy. Until we have good reason not to trust them.
Gleick’s “and fits the models” quote reminds me of the Orwell’s famous line in his novel, Animal Farm:
“Four legs good; two legs better.”
LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2011 at 4:44 pm
All of the other components of the climate models are used because they have been studied separately from the climate models and found to be correct.
Absent any citations that back this assertion, this is utter nonsense, particularly for real-world systems in which interactions otherwise not accounted for can drive outcomes well away from what individual components’ may have predicted.
Climate model are the modern form of divination by reading chicken entrails. Or am I being too hard on the old soothsayers?
I think “Fitting the Models” can only be accepted if that includes reprogramming or invalidating them as indicated by the new theory. One could not expect relativistic theory to match Newtonian models.