Uh, oh. It's models all the way down

Dr. Judith Curry lets an announcement slip in comments.

My understanding of climate is not helped much by climate models. Stay tuned, our big paper on natural internal climate variability just got accepted by Climate Dynamics

Ask yourself why the common sense stuff that I say is regarded as news.

Source: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/17/consensus-denialism/#comment-381667

I understand also that there’s a meaty essay coming in a major newspaper by Curry, I know which one it is, but I don’t want to give anti-skeptic zealots a head start into pressuring the editor ahead of time. They’ll just have to ask he be fired afterwards like they usually do.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
more soylent green!
September 19, 2013 8:12 am

John Robertson says:
September 19, 2013 at 7:55 am
So David Appell is saying that one should not attack models, but strive to make them better? Yes, that would be nice if the models worked better…He hasn’t seen the paper, only Judith’s comment that models don’t help her understand climate. Her comment seems to me to be a statement saying the models don’t appear to provide valid data and thus are invalid as sources of information or prediction. I’m sure her paper will list the shortcomings of models and possible solutions to aid in improving them – she is a real scientist after all. And that is what real scientists do: point out flaws and provide explanations. Even better, (IMHO), is where they follow the falsifiability process and show how to predict outcomes where predictions work or break down.
Judith is trying to work out the science of why we should, or should not, follow the outcomes of climate models as if they mean anything more than weather predictions greater than five to seven days or the farmers almanac.
I consider that to be a valid investigation of what is starting to look like a pseudo-science – climate models…

So according to Appell, if you’re not part of the solution you’re the problem?
Anyhoo, if the models need to be made better, isn’t that really an admission they don’t work properly and perhaps we should reconsider not changing the course of our civilization based upon the output of said models?

Scott Basinger
September 19, 2013 8:13 am

The GCMs obviously need to be improved. Mosher had a good suggestion a while back that we pare back on the models which have proven to be inaccurate and focus on a couple of the better models.
You could set a baseline for predictive skill – say the Guy Callendar model which Steve McIntyre recently showed to be better than pretty much every GCM the climate science community has been using – and don’t allow the software guys to mess up and go backwards on the key metric (predictive skill) for these one or two ‘good’ GCMs.
This would be a good Engineering approach. God knows the climate science community should start using it to solve their many problems.

Theo Goodwin
September 19, 2013 8:13 am

Tom G(ologist) says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:00 am
Thanks, Tom. I will have a longer comment a bit later. Yes, some areas of science have suffered more under PC than other areas. Given that “anthropology” is part of “paleoanthropology,” it must take quite some courage for you to set matters straight.

September 19, 2013 8:15 am

David says at September 19, 2013 at 7:58 am…
Exactly right for the honest Alarmist – of which there are legion.
But increasingly there is another step on the end:
To silence the debate by smear or (if in control of the medum) censorship.
These other Alarmists don’t care if you can beat them in debate so long as no-one else finds out. They don’t care about the truth.
They only care about hiding the exposure of the untruth.

Theo Goodwin
September 19, 2013 8:17 am

Scott Basinger says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:13 am
First task: specify the logical relationship between model and world that enables models to substitute for scientific theories. Scientific theories specify their data by implying their data.
Second task: to the usual standards of Scientific Method, explicate the claim that the models are “based on” the best physics or “contain” the best physics.
Third task: show us, apart from the models, the “best physics” that is “contained” in the models.
Fourth task: recognize that no science has ever been based on times series analysis and none ever will.

Thomas
September 19, 2013 8:29 am

Scott, The problem with your approach is that there are so many different ways to evaluate models. Look at global mean temperature and you get one result, look at how well they reproduce rainfall, wind patterns, seasonal changes and so on and you may very well get a different winner.

NotAGolfer
September 19, 2013 8:30 am

Great headline!

Colorado Wellington
September 19, 2013 8:37 am

Ms. Curry would make it in the west. She knows to drink upstream from the herd.

Skies and Stars Abound
September 19, 2013 8:49 am

David Appell is to Cognitive Dissonance what peanut butter is to jam.
You can almost hear the “hummmmmm” coming out from between his ears.

Gary
September 19, 2013 8:50 am

I think “David” sums it up nicely with his comment, as to what people like Judith are up against. I won’t repost his whole comment, but he ends his, “cognitive dissonance and ignorance is (sic) hard to fight.” And it isn’t just the topic of “climate change” where this disorder is manifest. Science has long battled its own internal urge to go religion where pet theories are concerned, organized religion be damned. I know most of those engaged in science recoil from established religion, thus it’s very strange to see academia adopt the same mindset.

Jimbo
September 19, 2013 9:06 am

Anthony, see Dr. Roy Spencer too.

17 September 2013
(We also have our own paper, slated to be published on October 31, which will present new results on climate sensitivity and the role of natural climate variations in recent warming.)http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/a-turning-point-for-the-ipcc-and-humanity/

Jimbo
September 19, 2013 9:07 am
September 19, 2013 9:14 am

See, that is a nose for news. I read that comment yesterday, and did not think much of it. Anthony did the addition.
And of course made me even more eager to read her announcement!

CRS, DrPH
September 19, 2013 9:20 am

William Astley says:
September 19, 2013 at 7:07 am
The extreme AGW paradigm is dying the death of a 1000 cuts.

ARRRRR! I approve of this message! Happy Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day, ya swabs!
-Cap’n Otis
p.s. kick ’em on the way down, they’ve earned it.

September 19, 2013 9:23 am

Bottom Line: the MODELS spit out exactly what they are told to based on what SCIENTISTS tell them is important or not important. i.e. Water vapour = positive feedback; the sun doesn’t exist, etc.

beng
September 19, 2013 9:26 am

Not to party-poop, but the SOP of neo-marxists was for decades, at least in the US, to hide & work behind the scenes avoiding exposure (with the collusion of the mass-media). Any exposure now can be met by simply returning to the old operating procedures — stealth, lies, history-revisionism, indoctrination-thru-education, infiltration & eventual usurpation. They are practiced experts at this, and the slithering tentacles of their ideals are everywhere.

pesadia
September 19, 2013 9:30 am

Graphicconception
“Bidet” Wonderful collective nown.
I also like a “Grasping” of climatologists.
My favourite phrase is “there in no “F” in CAGW.

Paul Westhaver
September 19, 2013 9:31 am

Wink.
It’s [turtles] all the way down.
Very funny headline. Very obscure, but funny.

pesadia
September 19, 2013 9:32 am

oops
that should read “there is no etc

Admad
September 19, 2013 9:35 am

The best time to kick a bully is when he’s been knocked down.

Bart
September 19, 2013 9:46 am

Paul Westhaver says:
September 19, 2013 at 9:31 am
You should have included a link. I had to hunt one down.

Theo Goodwin
September 19, 2013 10:00 am

Tom G(ologist) says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:00 am
Very interesting article, Tom. Yes, it does seem that Scientific Method overcame PC in this particular community of scientists. It is really wonderful to see that you are teaching Scientific Method, with its inherent emphasis on criticism, to students of paleoanthropology.

Theo Goodwin
September 19, 2013 10:08 am

beng says:
September 19, 2013 at 9:26 am
Agreed, but if PC had not gained such huge institutional backing in the media, the universities, the NGOs, and the environmental groups then attempted advances by Marxists would not have met with the success that they have enjoyed for 25 years or so. In the US, even the tiniest little colleges have “Diversity Deans” which represent permanent institutional commitments to PC. “Diversity Deans” can accomplish some good and important things but the office is a platform for PC initiatives.

September 19, 2013 10:09 am

Congratulations Dr Curry on the acceptance of your paper. I’m sure WUWT readers are looking forward to publication although it does not appear to be well aligned with the MSM meme and will likely not see much attention elsewhere. For that I am very, very sorry.
Nevertheless, as one of the very few climate scientists that actually practices science versus religion, I wish you well and ask that you keep up the great work.

September 19, 2013 10:19 am

As the CAGW scare starts to die …. the population explosion scare Part II starts to rise. There will be no respite, another cause will always be found when the current one dies.