Guest essay by Eric Worrall
How do you falsify a climate model? Australian National University Climate scientist Sophie Lewis acknowledges that climate models are not falsifiable – yet claims we should trust them anyway.
Climate change has changed the way I think about science. Here’s why
Research fellow, Australian National University
August 10, 2017 3.30pm AEST
I’ve wanted to be a scientist since I was five years old.
My idea of a scientist was someone in a lab, making hypotheses and testing theories. We often think of science only as a linear, objective process. This is also the way that science is presented in peer reviewed journal articles – a study begins with a research question or hypothesis, followed by methods, results and conclusions.
It turns out that my work now as a climate scientist doesn’t quite gel with the way we typically talk about science and how science works.
…
1. Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable
Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.
Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable.
Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.
This difficulty doesn’t mean that climate models or climate science are invalid or untrustworthy. Climate models are carefully developed and evaluated based on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes. This is why climatologists have confidence in them as scientific tools, not because of ideas around falsifiability.
…
Read more: http://theconversation.com/climate-change-has-changed-the-way-i-think-about-science-heres-why-82314
The problem with Sophie’s position is that fitting a model to past observations is not a test of whether the model is right; all fitting the model tells you is that you have found a way to fit the model. What counts is the ability of the model to predict the future – to accommodate observations which were unknown at the time the model was created.
“Careful development” just means current prejudices are carefully applied. But there are many more ways to be wrong than right – especially about something as complex as the global climate.
Climate scientists are desperate for their educated guesses to be accepted as science; so desperate that at least some climate scientists openly challenge the very keystone of science, the requirement that scientific theories must provide a means by which they can be falsified.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
eric, models cannot “predict” the future — they can
only project it, based on assumptions about
future CO2 emissions, solar changes, volcanic
eruptions, etc.
this is pretty
obvious and everyone should well
understand
it by now.
Semantics
345,
Based on what are largely unsupportable assumptions and unstated assumptions. Anticipating that you will ask me to support that claim, I offer up how energy exchanges in clouds are handled in GCMs, with parameterizations instead of actual modeling. The parameterizations are assumptions about what happens in clouds at a spatial scale different from what everything else is modeled.
What everyone understand very well by now is the vacuous opinionating of warmistas, and their belief that no one can see through their utterly transparent logical fallacies, squishy accountability for a endless litany of failed predictions, and a nearly incomprehensible ignorance of topics and areas of knowledge that have always ben considered within the purview of their chosen field of inquiry.
As far as anyone can discern, warmistas know more about Saul Alinsky-style character assignation than about Earth history, have precisely zero understanding of what constitutes actual science, are accountable to only those apportioning their next grant, and think believing something is the same as knowing it.
Not overlooking sensitivity to forcings, feedbacks etc. etc.
Nothing is sufficiently known or understood to be of value. It is assumptions piled upon assumptions piled upon assumptions etc tuned to dodgy data (the adjusted temperature data etc)
To the average person, the difference between a prediction and a projection are about nil. This includes our politicians who have been asked to reorder our entire civilization based largely on the outputs of these models.
“It turns out that my work now as a climate scientist doesn’t quite gel with the way we typically talk about science and how science works”
In that case, with all due respect, what you are doing doesn’t qualify as science.
When you realize that what you’re doing doesn’t actually count as Science, but still want to be called a Scientist.
I mean really, even the psychologists TRY to run experiments to test their theories.
Sophie – Yes they are falsifiable in the real world.
However in your dream world where you mix with other other distorted individuals, that may be the case.
Sophie has just given us a rare glimpse of how these folks think, or is it don’t think. They consider themselves to be above anyone else, the special chosen ones who have been tasked with saving the planet. Therefore they can make their own rules. And they do.
All kneel, bow your head and pay homage to the chosen ones. And think yourselves lucky that we have them guiding us. You will recognize them among us, they have arrogant blank looks on their faces, and speak in a soft monotone.
What ever it takes to rake in grant money, that is what they’re prepared to do. Redefining what science is though, is not even clever let alone tolerable. Her motto should be “Science is hard – let’s do it wrong.”
the title is misleading
The title says “climate science does not have to be falsifiable”
Climate science is falsifiable.
Sophie’s comments are about climate MODELS. climate models are not climate science.
They are not even climate theory.
They are tools and methods used to understand and evaluate
“How do you falsify a climate model? Australian National University Climate scientist Sophie Lewis acknowledges that climate models are not falsifiable – yet claims we should trust them anyway.”
This misquotes her.
The simple fact is no model and no theory is strictly speaking falsifiable. Even Popper knew this.
The really funny thing is skeptics argue two things.
1. the models HAVE BEEN falsified
2. its impossible to falsify them
no joke. its too funny.
The really funny thing is alarmists fail to address two things.
1. the models HAVE never BEEN validated.
2. its impossible to validate them
no joke. its too funny.
(There . . fixed it for you.)
Mosher,
Sophie is not being misquoted. She said, ” It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable…Climate models are carefully developed and evaluated based on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes. This is why climatologists have confidence in them as scientific tools, NOT because of ideas around falsifiability.” It seems to me that she is arguing that climate models don’t need to be falsifiable. So, whether they are “difficult” or impossible to falsify, she is turning her back on the requirement.
On the other hand, as David so amply demonstrates below, most skeptics actually think that the extant models have been falsified. You confound another complaint of skeptics with this. That is, forecasts, predictions, scenarios, whatever, are so far in the future that few if any of us will be around to see if they come true. In that sense, they are unfalsifiable. Despite near-term inability of the models to track reality, alarmist modelers adhere to their 100-year unfalsifiable predictions.
Well, no one can accuse them of not eventually having learned to make their doomsday no sooner than the longest time they can hope to be alive.
And no one can accuse them of being teachable either.
It takes a very dense and particularly impenetrable cranium to be always wrong and yet supremely confident.
So if climate models are not science, why do you believe we should use their output to inform political decisions about our economy?
No joke. It’s not funny. You are admitting that we should not use models as they are not science.
Once again Steve you blame skeptics in general for what a true believer specifically states.
How about holding true believers to even a fraction of the ball busting you hold skeptics to?
I’ve got this revolutionary weight loss herbal tea I’m selling.
It’s true that you may have seen a slow down in weight loss over the last ~ 20 years but the underlying benefits are still there (basic biology) and as soon as other confounding factors abate, your weight loss will continue.
😉
Falsified…
Falsified…
Falsified….
Falsified…
Falsified…
Falsified…
Falsified…
Falsified…
Falsified…
Ms. Lewis is correct. The climate models can’t be falsified… because they already have been falsified.
Now David don’t be a naughty boy.
If you don’t behave we will have to send you to one of Al Gores special educational boot camps to correct your way of thinking.
Its all a matter of perspective.
They just need to make their lines much thicker on the charts, then they will be in touch with reality.
See how easy it can be
I’m sure everyone has noticed that alarmists always try to make their public case with emotional appeals. For me, show me the proof; any proof. Alarmists are like those wackos that want us to believe intelligent extraterrestrial life forms are visiting planet Earth. Their “evidence” is always only fuzzy pictures and emotion fed conspiracy theories. The fact that there are multiple squadrons of credible scientists and institutions that say CAGW ain’t happening (proofs data not there) should raise at least one alarmist’s eyebrows. I mean, come on! BTW – as I understand it, out gov’t has spent over $100 Billion on globul warming climate studies; i.e. alarmist scientist. Look at the list of bad things that are blamed on Globul Warming. It’s a racket!
Some physicists (Stanford U) said string theory was jus t”so beautiful, it didn’t need to be tested” until CERN blew SuperSymmetry out of the water.
Now were gonna go back & start doing real (ie falsifiable) physics, the way Newton, Einstein & .
Feynman intended,
It’s about time, we’ve wasted 30 years on an goof-ball intentionaly-designed-not-to-be-testable theory (we’re repeating this with “climate science”).
Javert
You’re wrong to be down on string theory.
For one – it is not being used to justify a global Marxist revolution like CAGW is.
The original discovery by Veneziano that topological approaches derived from Euler improved the solutions to strong force data, is still valid.
Just because the Plank length is small and related energies are very high, does not mean it can’t be true.
It is an epistemological failure to imagine that it does.
ptolemy2 wrote, “You’re wrong to be down on string theory.
For one – it is not being used to justify a global Marxist revolution like CAGW is.”
and how is that?
if your electricity is generated
from renewable
sources, will
you not plug your
tv into the same
outlet??
Is that inane observance intended as a serious retort?
You outdo yourself, Wheat Thin.
javert: SS has
certainly not been
disproved.
where did you ever
get that notion?
Climate science has a falsifiability problem?
Solution – let’s insult Karl Popper by calling him, and the idea that science needs to be falsifiable, simple and childish.
There – that was easy!
And blame anyone who points out problems for the problems.
By fitting the models to past known weather pattern variations (which were set to a warming cycle by mother nature) and their outcome, climate scientists assume those same weather pattern variations will be at work in the future. That is an assumption clearly not supported by the archives. Weather patterns are a bit of a random walk at the peak of an interstadial, which is why our climate has been relatively stable. And at the peak of an interstadial, these weather patterns are keeping us generally warm (to be expected). The hysteria is over a tiny bump up falsely thought to be related to CO2. In the 70’s the scare was about a tiny bump down, again falsely thought to be related to CO2. In my opinion, a confounding factor monster bit them in the arse and now we have models that don’t fit the current weather pattern variation.
Science?? They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Pamela Gray commented
“In the 70’s the scare was about a tiny bump down, again falsely thought to be related to CO2”
So wrong.
It was due to SO2 pollution following WW2. Not CO2.
Who attributed it to CO2? Name one person.
“crackers345 August 10, 2017 at 6:3 pm
Who attributed it to CO2? Name one person.”
There are some here…
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/13/83-consensus-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/
I agree that the cooling was not being attributed to CO2.
However, the accepted position, and this was based upon known principles of physics which are said to underpin the AGW theory, was that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 was low.
So for example NASA/GISS in the 1970s assessed the Climate Sensitivity to CO2 was such that an 8 fold increase in CO2 would lead to an increase in temperature of less than 2 degC. See the Schneider et al paper published in Science.
Pamela Gray commented:
“In the 70’s the scare was about a tiny bump down, again falsely thought to be related to CO2”
Crackers wrote:
“So wrong. It was due to SO2 pollution following WW2. Not CO2.”
Allan wrote:
The global cooling that occurred from ~1940-1975 was FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO INCREASING SO2. Aerosol data was fabricated to force-hindcast the climate models to fit this cooling.
Here is supporting correspondence with Douglas Hoyt dating back to 2006:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/20/study-from-marvel-and-schmidt-examination-of-earths-recent-history-key-to-predicting-global-temperatures/comment-page-1/#comment-2103527
In fact, the ~35-year global cooling period that commenced in ~1940 adequately falsifies the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming. The CAGW hypo is further falsified by the current ~20-year “Pause” in global temperatures.
That is why the warmists have more recently been falsifying the temperature data records to minimize the ~35-year cooling period and increase their alleged warming during the Pause.
Conclusion:
Since 1940 there has been ~22 years of positive correlation of temperature with CO2, and ~55 years of negative or ~zero correlation. The global warming hypo is contradicted by a full-Earth-scale test since 1940. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.
Regards, Allan
Thank you Allan for posting this.
These changing historical values are the reason why I do not look at ‘climate
scientists‘ as ‘scientists’. This is no science.Global warming alarmism is unscientific nonsense, supported by scoundrels and imbeciles.
George Carlin said it better. [Warning – language] 🙂
There is a general problem with creating a model in the first place. Predicting conditions in the next century based on the previous century is similar to predicting the conditions tomorrow based on the last 0.00912 seconds. There simply isn’t enough data to form a model or statically falsify it.
Entertained by, and wondering about the source of, your graph. Good parody, and easily falsifiable just by reference to the current ’17.’ Lot more than that just off Somalia. Calling Willis…. : > )
My model says my estimate of pirate numbers is correct… 🙂
Why are my posts with innocuous language and no links going into moderation?
Why am I on the naughty step?
OK I get it – I mis-spelled my email address – my bad!
Reply: yup and I just noticed all this during cleanup~ctm
Sophie Lewis, “It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable.”
No it’s not. It is instead difficult to find climate modelers competent to evaluate their own models.
The problem with the models is that they assume that “greenhouse ” gasses play a role in climate change. They don’t!
For an alternative model, Google “Climate Change Deciphered”
This model has been falsified (that is, empirically tested) multiple times, and has been validated each time.
Using Sophie Lewis’s logic, I can develop a climate model based on nothing more than a random number generator. I then ask others to trust the output.
Sheri wants us to trust climate models. Do we trust all of them? Do we choose our favorite color? Is Monckton et al’s ‘Bode’ based equation the one- it certainly is closer at following observations. Guy Callendar in the 1930s designed one that fits pretty well and having done it 80yrs ago makes his the strongest of them all. Will Callendar’s survive the downturn in temperatures, no it won’t, but we certainly would have had one that worked for 80 yrs eventhough it isn’t correct if CO2 keeps going up and temperature declines.
Ya see Sheri you were very badly taught and you clearly didn’t argue about it. You accepted it like Moses accepted the tablets with the 10 commandments. I’m probably wrong but I have an inkling there are 10 commandments in climate science, too.
A big thing that separates climate studies from science is when its delivered in an indestructible whole, like the Torah, or Koran or Bible… There can be no learning moments. When weather departs from holy climate, this should be a teachable moment. Don’t bend the pause back up to fit. It’s a missing factor that is being signaled. This is more sacred than being guided by your climatechism.
If you don’t get to test the underlying assumptions and programming of a climate model, climate science in general, then,
… You are simply being asked to believe.
Which is all this movement is based on. Believing, Not questioning. Politically correct shaming.
The exact opposite of reaching the correct answer. If you like not knowing whether your answer is right or wrong, not testing is the way to go. Climate science doesn’t care if their theory is wrong,
Is the global warming theory right or wrong. Just keep asking that question everywhere you can because eventually people are forced into a corner of actually thinking about it themselves.
++++++
Eating your cake, and somehow having it too
Me thinks Ms. Lewis is rather naive on the politics of science.
Models used by Australian Climate Scientists can’t even predict the weather for a month.
“The World’s Best Practice climate models predicted Australia would be hotter than normal in September, instead the maximum temperature anomaly was 1 to 5 degrees below average across most of Australia.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/bom-september-failure-but-who-can-predict-the-climate-a-whole-month-ahead/
climate models
don’t predict weather, they
“project” climate.
how well does your
climate model so?
And climate is the average of 30 years of weather, models based on assumption as you make clear in another post. So, at least you admit models are, largely, based on assumption. I will ignore that projection if it cannot be based on observation.
There are billions of reasons to “believe” in GCMs.
Heck, the US federal government alone gave us over 29 billion reasons every year for many years running.
Pure sophistry.
crackers345:
“Climate models don’;t predict weather, they “project” climate: How well does your climate model do?”
To within .02 deg. C, or less, through years 1975 – 2011
I would seriously like to see someone rerun the CMIP5 model ensemble with the ECS set to zero. Would they all project global temperature to flat-line? Maybe try ECS at 0.5 and 1.0 too. Is there an ECS value that would correspond to the satellite and balloon observations over the last 20 years? Would the models still ‘project’ warming if ECS is set to zero? Has this already been done and if so does anyone know where to find the results? If it hasn’t, why not?
Rick C PE commented
“I would seriously like to see someone rerun the CMIP5 model ensemble with the ECS set to zero. Would they all project global temperature to flat-line?”
“What’s Really Warming the World,” Bloomberg Business, 6/24/15
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Is it UHI? Don’t know, they didn’t plot that one. Why not ask NASA https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
Is it due to over the top adjustments? Don’t know, they didn’t plot that one either. Why not ask Tony Heller. https://realclimatescience.com/
Is it due to the PDO? Don’t know, they didn’t plot that one either.
Pretty pathetic on Bloombergs part and tells me they are just proselytes of a new found religion. Not to be trusted.
Interesting, but the article says the graphs are from a 2012 study and show results up to 2005. Was the model used identical to the version used in the IPCC projections? Might it have been revised a few times more recently – maybe updated parameterizations to better tune to the historical record? If you start with the creation of a model based on the premise that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature you will end up with model outputs that show a primary response to CO2. I am neither surprised nor convinced.
They do provide very clear evidence of one phenomenon…circular reason that begins with the desired conclusion will never give you a result that makes you think twice.