Comments on: Trusting Experts and Their Models

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 19:25:00 +0000

Ted Rado: There is no question that scientists have fit their equations to the data.

Yes, that's exactly how science works. You fit the theory to the data, not the other way around.

Ted Rado: Why did the temp not go up in the past 15 years as pedicted?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

If you take out solar activity, ENSO and volcanic activity, then the trend is even more obvious. See Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2010.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg

Ted Rado: The problem is that there is no way to stop the use of fossil fuels without wrecking the economy.

That's right. There has to be an orderly transition to the new economy.

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:19:00 +0000

You just posited that climate models predict a spiraling process resulting in boiling oceans, which simply isn't the case.

By: Ted Rado

Ted Rado — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 04:33:00 +0000

Zachriel: There is no question that scientists have fit their equations to the data. That simply shows that data fittting works. Why did the temp not go up in the past 15 years as pedicted? Obviously, the models are wrong. They fit past data (easy to do) but bomb on future predictions.
The problem is that there is no way to stop the use of fossil fuels without wrecking the economy. To plunge ahead with this is madness.

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:18:00 +0000

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." Ted Rado: Models are just that: models. All of science is models. They are judged by their fit to the data. Climatologists have collected data from space, the polar regions, from the stratosphere, from the land and oceans. The science of anthropogenic climate change is supported not only by climate science, but related fields, such as physics and biology.

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:13:00 +0000

All science is considered tentative, no matter how strongly supported, but some findings are so well supported that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. There is a large body of science, in many related fields, that support anthropogenic climate change.

By: Andrew_M_Garland

Andrew_M_Garland — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:35:00 +0000

To Zachriel,

I will continue to supply skeptical data from research. You can continue to supply your personal, anonymous opinions.

By: Andrew_M_Garland

Andrew_M_Garland — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:32:00 +0000

To Zachriel,

That is comforting. "Even if climatologists are wrong, at least they are working in a scientific manner."

The point about real science is to be self-sceptical until you have proof. That does not describe the collection of government appointees known as the IPCC.

EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

By: Ted Rado

Ted Rado — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 03:28:00 +0000

Models are just that: models. You can write a computer program that will predict that every man will become a mother in 2013. So what?
A usable model is one that is based on first principles, with NO fudge factors. Empirical models are worthless excwept is a very few simple cases. The more complex the system, the more essential it is to base in ONLY of first principles.
One can always fit a model to a data set via a Fourier series or some other means. Every data point can be made to fit the equation perfectly. Again, so what? This says nothing about how NEW data will fit the OLD equation. This problem shows up every time the IPCC updates their work. The following data again does not fit well.
I am all for new ideas and hypothesese. However, to charge off and destroy the world economy based on the mere assertion that "My model is right" is utter stupidity. Further, there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near future, so we can't do much about it anyway. Continuing study of the climate should proceed without all this mindless zealotry.

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:45:00 +0000

Andrew M Garland: Theories of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming should lose their credibility because they are not Science. Even if climatologists are wrong, they are certainly working in a scientific manner. And important, they are supported by many related fields of study, from observations in oceanography to glaciology to ornithology to forestry to planetology, and so on.

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:42:00 +0000

Andrew M Garland: Who are the people who have determined that Catastrophic, Anthropogenic (man caused), Global Warming is scientifically certain? While nothing in science is certain, the vast majority of climatologists agree that humans will radically alter the climate if they continue on their present course. Andrew M Garland: This is a careful, scholarly, clear, and readable presentation of claims and data. Actually, it appears to be a rehash of skeptical claims. Like so many skeptics, he just pokes at the edges in the literature, while making much bigger claims to lay audiences. Andrew M Garland: The usual rationale for alarm comes from models. All science is models. However, there are a variety of measures of climate sensitivity. Experts in the field believe there is a high probability of significant sensitivity. Andrew M Garland: A major argument against an explosive, self-multiplying warming is that we are here to talk about it. If the Earth's climate system had a multiplier, rather than a brake, then prior much warmer and much colder periods would have spiraled to either a freezing or boiling extreme. Venus would be an example. Earth has been stable for 3 billion years. That is not correct. Modern climate model do not predict runaway processes. The Earth's climate is a complex system with many positive and negative feedbacks.