Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

Pop said:
You think you do. What you wind up getting more often is the wrong assumption. Of course you would use a model that was 100% accurate because you can run theoretical experiments you could not in the real world. Creating a 3D model to visually represent data can be useful, creating one to explain reality cannot unless it is identical to reality.
Click to expand...
MM said:
If so, then welcome to the end of science.
Click to expand...
Quite. What about the drawings of how we think dinosaurs or ancient cities might have looked like? How about scientists studying Viking ships by building replicas based on the ones we've found in, say, burial sites? Is Gaia worthless because she is probably not an exact, 100% replica of the Gokstad ship?

As for the highlighted part, we don't just create 3d models as visual aids - we do, as far as I know, create them to test for example the performance of aircraft.
 
Hokulele said:
Ah, so you do not have an answer. Thanks.
Click to expand...
One who matches snideness with proud ignorance, stumples into witless arrogance.

Did you even care about the answer?

Safe-Keeper said:
Q....As for the highlighted part, we don't just create 3d models as visual aids - we do, as far as I know, create them to test for example the performance of aircraft.
Click to expand...

These are different things. Of course many 3D models are visual aids.

You must go to an apples to apples comparison, such as an aircraft shell representation subjected to computational fluid dynamics (CFM), then a similar implementation of the equations for climate modeling.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Poptech
Virtual reality propability only applies to the virtual world. The one thing you can be sure of is everything happened 100% in the empirical experiment whether you understood it or analyzed it correct or not.

​
MattusMaximus said:
Huh? What? So you're going to claim there is no use whatsoever for any kind of computer modeling work - across the board, for everything? Despite the fact that in a wide variety of fields such computer modeling has helped us expand our boundaries of knowledge by orders of magnitude?....
Click to expand...
Back to your old tricks, are you? Why not simply try to understand the argument presented? I doubt if it is beyond you , and that is a fundamental aspect of learning. By making up something and then rebutting it, while it may seem easier, you would not get a passing grade on the quiz.

MattusMaximus said:
Nice. Did you get that from a fortune cookie?

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at addressing my questions of Poptech in this post?
Click to expand...

You mean the questions which although not without meaning, are predicated on mis statements of Poptech? Go back a bit there and reconsider.
 
Originally Posted by Poptech
Virtual reality propability only applies to the virtual world. The one thing you can be sure of is everything happened 100% in the empirical experiment whether you understood it or analyzed it correct or not.


technoextreme said:
Ehhhh gads that isn't close to being correct. Whenever you perform an experiment you always introduce uncertainty. ....
Click to expand...
And the introduced uncertainty of a climate model run?

What is it?
 
Okay, mhaze. So you can't (or won't) answer my questions either.

And you wonder why some don't take you seriously :rolleyes:
 
MattusMaximus said:
Okay, mhaze. So you can't (or won't) answer my questions either.

And you wonder why some don't take you seriously :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It is not that I cannot lend credence to a delusion of competence, but that I find your imputing of motives and mistatements of others contrived poorly, artifices of convenience, for purposes of obfuscating what otherwise would be a simple discussion, and in this circuituous fashion you unwittingly prove the OP.

Thanks.
 
Poptech said:
This is called curve fitting.
Click to expand...

It is called testing. Do you know any better way to test the model?

The only idea it gives you is what happens when you run the code in the model that is programmed to get the results indended in relation to CO2.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence of all of that.

No they are not. They are just as useless. If you code X amount of CO2 causes X amount of temperature increase it will happen, this does not make it true in the real world.
Click to expand...

They don't code that in their models at all. I already told you, they code in the physical properties of the components that are understood. The radiation properties of CO2 are well known and understood.
 
Understatement by Gavin on confusion
Climate modelling 101

3 November 2008
FAQ on climate models

— group @ 6:39 - (Svenska) (English)

We discuss climate models a lot, and from the comments here and in other forums it’s clear that there remains a great deal of confusion about what climate models do and how their results should be interpreted. This post is designed to be a FAQ for climate model questions - of which a few are already given. If you have comments or other questions, ask them as concisely as possible in the comment section and if they are of enough interest, we’ll add them to the post so that we can have a resource for future discussions. (We would ask that you please focus on real questions that have real answers and, as always, avoid rhetorical excesses).
Click to expand...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-on-climate-models-part-ii/langswitch_lang/sp

•••

And you wonder why some don't take you seriously

mhaze responds
It is not that I cannot lend credence to a delusion of competence, but that I find your imputing of motives and mistatements of others contrived poorly, artifices of convenience, for purposes of obfuscating what otherwise would be a simple discussion, and in this circuituous fashion you unwittingly prove the OP
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

:dl:

The Irony the Irony...
 
Last edited:
Sorry I'm late.

Poptech said:
Climate Science is less about actual science and more about political posturing. This is demonstrated here by the constant appeals to authority.
Click to expand...


Ah, self-descriptive first post. Well, that covers it.
 
mhaze said:
It is not that I cannot lend credence to a delusion of competence, but that I find your imputing of motives and mistatements of others contrived poorly, artifices of convenience, for purposes of obfuscating what otherwise would be a simple discussion, and in this circuituous fashion you unwittingly prove the OP.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

And still you say nothing of interest.
 
I just find it interesting that neither Poptech or mhaze care to respond to the following inquiry:

First, Poptech claims that without "100% accuracy" in the model, no computer-generated climate model can be trusted. He/she then goes on to mention that such models should be disregarded and "empirical experiments" should be done instead.

I then point out that all empirical science via experiment involves uncertainty, which always leads to less than 100% accurate results.

I then challenged Poptech (and then mhaze) to address an apparent logical inconsistency within Poptech's arguments. Namely, that if the standard for trusting science is 100% accuracy, and if even empirical experiments (which seem to be the gold standard, according to Poptech) cannot attain this level of accuracy, then how can we trust any such experiments either?

Are these experiments just as useless, using Poptech's standard, as the computer-generated climate models he/she despises so much?

I asked Poptech (and by extension mhaze) to address this apparent inconsistency within the argument against computer modeling, and this is the answer I get (from mhaze)...

You mean the questions which although not without meaning, are predicated on mis statements of Poptech? Go back a bit there and reconsider.
Click to expand...
It is not that I cannot lend credence to a delusion of competence, but that I find your imputing of motives and mistatements of others contrived poorly, artifices of convenience, for purposes of obfuscating what otherwise would be a simple discussion, and in this circuituous fashion you unwittingly prove the OP.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

What's the matter, mhaze? You can't answer a simple question regarding what seems to be a massive internal logical inconsistency in Poptech's arguments? My question actually doesn't have anything to do with climate science specifically - it is simply a question about logic & the method of argumentation provided here by your erstwhile ally, Poptech.

Why won't you address the question? Why all this deflection?
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
I just find it interesting that neither Poptech or mhaze care to respond to the following inquiry:

First, Poptech claims that without "100% accuracy" in the model, no computer-generated climate model can be trusted. He/she then goes on to mention that such models should be disregarded and "empirical experiments" should be done instead.

I then point out that all empirical science via experiment involves uncertainty, which always leads to less than 100% accurate results.
Click to expand...
I already responded to this.

The one thing you can be sure of is everything happened 100% REAL in the empirical experiment whether you did the experiment correctly or understood it or analyzed it correctly or not.

MattusMaximus said:
I then challenged Poptech (and then mhaze) to address an apparent logical inconsistency within Poptech's arguments. Namely, that if the standard for trusting science is 100% accuracy, and if even empirical experiments (which seem to be the gold standard, according to Poptech) cannot attain this level of accuracy, then how can we trust any such experiments either?
Click to expand...
It is not trusting the experiment but the "laboratory". The real world's "laboratory" is 100% perfect, a computer model is not. Virtual reality can be whatever you want it to be and computer climate models are just that, they are the code based on the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them. The real world has no such bias.

There is no deflection except by people constantly changing the subject or confusing word definitions.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Apparently, computer simulations don't run in reality.
Click to expand...
The computer hardware runs in reality, the simulation is virtual. BTW there are all sorts of issues relating to the hardware that is not even remotely addressed.

Belz... said:
See the dissonance ? HE can make appeals to authority and popularity, but not us.
Click to expand...
No I responded to an inquiry. The dissonance is your inability to recognize the context.

Belz... said:
And as we all know EVERYTHING one finds on google is true, especially if your search leads you to Youtube.
Click to expand...
Google Scholar is not the same as Google but you knew that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom