Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

[athon]

After reading through the thread (apart from all of PT's links) I must say I've rarely felt such admiration I feel right now in the way you, athon, once again handle your communications here on the forum.

As somebody who's "foreign" English needs A LOT refinement (especially in how to relate a differing opinion/questions about it without making it sound hostile towards the person), I find great inspiration. Respect. Hope you do too, PT .

Oh, sorry for the off-topic...

Much appreciated.

Science thrives on debate. In fact, it's its single biggest virtue, allowing it to self-correct as new information comes to light. Often, disagreements come down to one of three things;

1) The precise meaning of a term
2) The actual presence of a particular observation
3) The relevance of one observation to another

The first one is tough, as it arises out of the discussion of ideas. We get around most of it through using unambiguous language such as jargon, or mathematics. We try to share a language, such as Latin or Greek, to get around it as well. But no matter what, we're impeded by how we're understood. Good ideas can get lost with poor discussion.

The second is improved with repeated experiments and more people looking. Yet it isn't a dichotomous situation - as I suggested to PopTech, there is no universal threshold for observations that distinguishes 'proof' from 'no proof'. We all have personal thresholds for evidence, with some set higher than others.

The third requires modeling to compare observations within a possible context. Arguing the strengths of models is what scientists do. Yet dismissing the notion of using models seems to be like asking a musician to play a song without making a sound.

Athon

 

[Poptech]

Arguing the strengths of models is what scientists do. Yet dismissing the notion of using models seems to be like asking a musician to play a song without making a sound.

No science is based on empirical evidence and reproducible results. Arguing the strengths of climate models is what computer illiterate natural scientists do. BTW the same thing holds true for other quantitative models on economics which are just as useless. Your music analogy is just absurd beyond belief.

Here is a good book to read.

Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future (Orrin H. Pilkey, Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, 2006)

 

[Hokulele]

No science is based on empirical evidence and reproducible results. Arguing the strengths of climate models is what computer illiterate natural scientists do. BTW the same thing holds true for other quantitative models on economics which are just as useless. Your music analogy is just absurd beyond belief.

Here is a good book to read.

Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future (Orrin H. Pilkey, Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, 2006)

I am sure that cosmologists the world over will be amused to hear they aren't scientists.

 

[athon]

No I am not. You wrongly assumed that.

That is a different definition of model.

You're not seeing a pattern here?

I can only assume what you mean going on the context of your phrasing. Now, you can contend that it's me who is not understanding you, however you're the one endeavouring to make a point in this thread. I also make a living from communications, so spend a lot of time studying science and language.

Your choice is simple - realise you're not being clear and find a better way to express yourself, or continue to obfuscate in language and use terms in a way that is different to how they'll be interpreted.

That is because you do not understand their limitations. Computers are useful tools but "climate models" are empirically useless code.

It would come as a great surprise to many of the scientists I work with to know that their observations play no role in their models.

You are again confusing different types of models. This is common among alarmists who do not have a background in computer science.

Really? How are they different? Computers are used to compute information within a model - now, I admit I'm not a computer scientist, yet we work with a lot of them, and they form an integral part of many of the divisions at our organisation. I've never sat in a discussion and heard any of them refer to the models in different contexts, or correct me when I've mentioned scientific models and computer models in the same light.

If computer climate models are wrong (they all are), their results are meaningless, computer science 101.

All models are potentially wrong. Some, however, are useful.

I'd be shocked if all of the computer scientists who model our data were completely wrong, and some lone random on a web forum who seems to be presenting unique ways of understanding science that disagrees with much of my experience was right. Then again, I'm open to being shocked. But so far you're not doing a good job of it.

That is because you do not understand the limitations of computer systems.

True. But I do understand the limits and virtues of science. And while models can be incorrect and still be seen as useful, I'm yet to be convinced that all climate change models are both incorrect AND useless.

Really? So too much water vapor is pollution?

You didn't answer the question.

Define 'pollution'.

Athon

 

[athon]

No science is based on empirical evidence and reproducible results.

Shall I assume there is a comma in between 'no' and 'science'?

In which case, I'll ask how you determine an observation to be described as 'evidence' in the absence of a model.

I realise you're trying to distinguish 'computer models' from 'models' in a scientific sense, but you'll need to explain what makes them so dramatically different, other than the fact the former is a way of keeping track of details within the latter.

Arguing the strengths of climate models is what computer illiterate natural scientists do. BTW the same thing holds true for other quantitative models on economics which are just as useless. Your music analogy is just absurd beyond belief.

Hm, so all of economics, astronomy, protein folding, much of genetics, and probably half a dozen other scientific fields are pseudoscience in your opinion?

Here is a good book to read.

Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future (Orrin H. Pilkey, Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, 2006)

I'll look out for it.

Athon

 

[SezMe]

Computers are useful tools but "climate models" are empirically useless code.

You're the one who's confused. Climate models are not computer code. Computer code is one way that a climate model is approximated and tested.

 

[Tapio]

PT, some questions that I feel could help (at least me) to somehow bring this conversation a more fruitful base.

1. What are you aiming at by starting these threads regarding climate change, AGW and related issues? Is it just trolling? Are you genuinely interested in making a difference and possibly educating people?

2. Do you understand that this forum is a place where you actually can find people who practice what they preach, and could thus honestly be intrigued by your claims, providing you give adequate reasons for it?

I feel you are presenting yourself in a manner which prevents members like myself from benefitting of your knowledge in computer science and makes it difficult to understand why you, based on your knowledge, think like you do?

I'm a layman, and have found this forum to be of great use in the gathering of bits and pieces of knowledge regarding various subjects, as well as helping in finding the tools with which to put these pieces together. Your expertise in computer sciences could be of benefit here. I just feel there's some kind of hostility in the way you present yourself, as well as a certain close-mindedness unabling you to actually read what other members (in this case athon) is discussing.

Not saying you have to change anything...just my thoughts on how you could possibly help in clearing some misunderstandings...

 

[BenBurch]

My point wasn't whether they did as you claimed or not - my point was that it's a poor way to respond. ...

Nominated.

 

[BenBurch]

You're the one who's confused. Climate models are not computer code. Computer code is one way that a climate model is approximated and tested.

In fact, Climate models ARE tested.

If he really were a computer scientist (rather than some hack MySQL coder) he would know what a "genetic algorithm" is. And there is a HUGE worldwide cloud computing project that is doing just that.

See; http://climateprediction.net/

They run the models historically, and compare results to the recorded past to then choose the models to run prospectively. The cloud has been running a number of different models all with genetically-varying parameters, including a number from the UK Met Office.

 

[Molinaro]

This is a common mistake alarmists make. I was not using the mathematical definition of "proof" but the common english usage of "prove".


I will ignore virtual reality as empirical evidence of anything. I was not only trained as a computer scientist but have spent practically my whole life dealing with computer systems. I would hardly call requesting empirical evidence for science "a rather high threshold".

and

If computer climate models are wrong (they all are), their results are meaningless, computer science 101.

These comments are what prevent me from taking you seriously.

I am also a programmer. I've been a programmer since 1983, and I've worked in arpoximately 25 different languages over that time.

What amazes me is that you seem to think that if we take equations on paper, or a step by step explanation of some mechanism in nature and write it out in words, that's ok.

But if it is put in the form of a program that it somehow becomes false.

Are you a bad programmer who has no faith in his own work, who then projects a level of incompetance on all other programmers?

Do you think something magical hapens when something defined in a paper containing words and equations is transfered into computer code that renders it meaningless?

Your dismissal of computer models is irrational and excludes you, in my opinion, from being capable of discussing anything.

 

[BenBurch]

Molinaro, I am convinced he couldn't code his way out of an infinite loop...

 

[Molinaro]

I guess we need to give him a

break;

For the non-programmers, "break;" is a statement that can be used in C code to exit an infinite loop.

 

[BenBurch]

I guess we need to give him a

break;

For the non-programmers, "break;" is a statement that can be used in C code to exit an infinite loop.

 

[BenBurch]

Off topic - my favorite way to code an infinite loop in C -

#include <stdio.h>

#define ever (;;)

int main()
{
	for ever
	{
		printf("Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall.\r\n");
	}
}

 

[Poptech]

I can only assume what you mean going on the context of your phrasing. Now, you can contend that it's me who is not understanding you, however you're the one endeavouring to make a point in this thread. I also make a living from communications, so spend a lot of time studying science and language.

The word "model" has many definitions, including the mathematical/scientific and computer usage. Non computer scientists frequently confuse both of these. When I use the word computer - that should be a hint.

Your choice is simple - realise you're not being clear and find a better way to express yourself, or continue to obfuscate in language and use terms in a way that is different to how they'll be interpreted.

When I state computer climate model, I am being as clear as I can and am refering to the computer program/code.

It would come as a great surprise to many of the scientists I work with to know that their observations play no role in their models.

Oh they play a role in the computer models (all the code does) but the results are just as useless no matter how good the observations. They would be better off just using their observations as reference data for real science. Their observations however are excellent empirical evidence and well worth their time.

Really? How are they different? Computers are used to compute information within a model - now, I admit I'm not a computer scientist, yet we work with a lot of them, and they form an integral part of many of the divisions at our organisation. I've never sat in a discussion and heard any of them refer to the models in different contexts, or correct me when I've mentioned scientific models and computer models in the same light.

There are useful computer models used for 3D imaging and engineering. These are different than computer climate models. Engineering models are based on known physics in a controlled environment.

All models are potentially wrong. Some, however, are useful.

All computer climate models are wrong and they are all useless. Yes I know this is tough for all those wasting their time on them. But working harder and writing more code will not make them more accurate, they will still be wrong.

I'd be shocked if all of the computer scientists who model our data were completely wrong, and some lone random on a web forum who seems to be presenting unique ways of understanding science that disagrees with much of my experience was right. Then again, I'm open to being shocked. But so far you're not doing a good job of it.

That completely depends on your models. Any passable computer programmer can code in what you want. Natural scientists and engineers frequently use FORTRAN (short for formula translating) because it is easy for them to plug in formulas, compile the code and get results. There is also egos with some that they are smart enough to make the best computer model. This same wrong thinking drives economists who rely on macro computer models results too.

True. But I do understand the limits and virtues of science. And while models can be incorrect and still be seen as useful, I'm yet to be convinced that all climate change models are both incorrect AND useless.

They are "seen" as useful but this does not make them useful.

Define 'pollution'.

In this case we are talking about air pollution.

"The contamination of the atmosphere by any toxic or radioactive gases"

In which case, I'll ask how you determine an observation to be described as 'evidence' in the absence of a model.

A scientific observation is an act of recognising and noting measurement of some magnitude with suitable instruments. It has nothing to do with models.

I realise you're trying to distinguish 'computer models' from 'models' in a scientific sense, but you'll need to explain what makes them so dramatically different, other than the fact the former is a way of keeping track of details within the latter.

One is a computer simulation (computer models) the other does not need a computer (scientific model).

Hm, so all of economics, astronomy, protein folding, much of genetics, and probably half a dozen other scientific fields are pseudoscience in your opinion?

No they are all valid sciences where computer modeling is a subset. (I have not looked at astronomy or genetic models) but all quantitative economic models are useless, that has been proven. And yes computers are incredibly useful tools in all of them.

 

[Darat]

Thread closed, see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146653 for more details.

ETA: 30th June 2008, thread re-opened. To all participants please remember your Membership Agreement especially Rules 11, 12, 6 and 4!

Posted By: Darat

 

[Poptech]

What amazes me is that you seem to think that if we take equations on paper, or a step by step explanation of some mechanism in nature and write it out in words, that's ok.

But if it is put in the form of a program that it somehow becomes false.

I made no such claim, I feel the scientific validity is lacking for an equation on paper in this case or in a "computer model" until proven (my definition) empirically. But in the case of computer climate models it is much more involved than this.

Are you a bad programmer who has no faith in his own work, who then projects a level of incompetance on all other programmers?

Being a "good programmer" and being knowledgeable about computer systems are two different things. It is a possibility have "clean" code in a computer climate model (though I highly doubt this is the case from what I have seen) from a "good" programmer and still have the results be meaningless.

Do you think something magical hapens when something defined in a paper containing words and equations is transfered into computer code that renders it meaningless?

I made no such claim as explained above.

Your dismissal of computer models is irrational and excludes you, in my opinion, from being capable of discussing anything.

My dismissal of the use of computer climate models for scientific conclusions, predictions and policy is based solely on computer science. The models are not a 100% perfect reproduction of the earth and all it contains in real time, therefore they cannot predict anything. I am just amazed at the lack of understanding people have with computer systems.

 

[Uncayimmy]

My dismissal of the use of computer climate models for scientific conclusions, predictions and policy is based solely on computer science. The models are not a 100% perfect reproduction of the earth and all it contains in real time, therefore they cannot predict anything. I am just amazed at the lack of understanding people have with computer systems.

So, you're saying that in order to predict "anything" a model has to be "100% perfect", right? I got two words for you: Newton's Laws of Motion.

 

[Reality Check]

My dismissal of the use of computer climate models for scientific conclusions, predictions and policy is based solely on computer science. The models are not a 100% perfect reproduction of the earth and all it contains in real time, therefore they cannot predict anything. I am just amazed at the lack of understanding people have with computer systems.

I am just amazed at the lack of understanding in that one phrase.
It would be easier to build a new Earth than to build a computer to predict the Earth's climate 100% accurately and that does the prediction in real time.

So according to your "logic" a computer model that predicts climate to 99.9999% accuracy and takes a week to produce its results for a day that is a month in the future is useless?

US farmers must be totally ignoring all those weather forecasts that are not 100% correct and definitely not real time.That would explain the millions of starving people in the US !

 

[Poptech]

So, you're saying that in order to predict "anything" a model has to be "100% perfect", right? I got two words for you: Newton's Laws of Motion.

You are confusing computer and science models. I am well aware people constantly confuse the two. And just because you can plug newtons laws into a computer, it is not the same thing as a computer climate model.

Yes computer climate models have to be perfect to predict anything, that is how computers work. They do not fill in the blanks for you like nature does when you do an experiment in the real world. Though many people who do not understand computer science think otherwise. They usually have various other computer related issues.