Jump to content

Scientific Method in climate science


NortonH

Recommended Posts

Just now, pavelcherepan said:

A model or a theory doesn't have to provide falsification criteria. They can be derived from the model itself. It's only a problem where no falsification is possible.

Sorry but that is not true if you want the theory to be scientific. (Do you want that?)

If the theory agrees with all possible outcomes and can never be falsified then it is not science it is faith.

Basic SM.

So you have no interest in the models and yet you feel confident to tell me I am wrong to doubt them. Why?

I have googled for models many times but all I ever find are huge computer simulations devoid of testable criteria. I have investigated the code and found it full of arbitrary assumptions and fudge factors but my main complaint is that all we ever get are models for minor phenomena (eg Amazon river levels, ice cover  on some arctic sea etc). Nowhere is there a model which can make credible predictions about the climate of the planet in 100 years time. You know, the mysterious one they are using to justify our reduction CO2 production. Where is that one? Is it in the link you  gave or have you just posted more of the ones I mentioned earlier? Without that one there is nothing. The climate is not a separable system, is it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Beecee, please get hold of a dictionary and look up the word 'inferred'.
Unless you are a mind reader you cannot do it.

 

I don't need to, thank you very much. I have a very good inside into and making judgements on where a person is coming from. Now that may not really be scientific, but it is certainly on the mark!

Quote

To summarise - yes, I reject all 'advice' based in fallacies and argument from authority is one such fallacy.

You can wear that oft repeated claim as your badge of honour, but just as obviously we all argue from authority at times, and that authority is certainly head and shoulders above claims by those on evangelistic missions to attempt to press home their agenda/s

 

Quote

I have not hidden anything. As I have said half a dozen times, all that matters is what I write here.

What you have written is all unsupported and rhetoric.

 

Quote

What 'unsupported claims' have i made? I am not the one arguing from authority, remember?

Many, and I really havn't the time, nor am I that interested in answering your continued unsupported claims, as against professional credentialled authority

Quote

Your links to various videos and IPCC pdfs are not models. My new turtle friend has finally actually delivered something which I will now investigate.

You will investigate?? Impressive, but on what authority? :D

Quote

There is a difference between an IPCC puff peice about their models and actually seeing the models! IS that a hard concept?? I will give you a brochure or a Mercedes... or a Mercedes. Which do you want?
LOL

Another poor unrelated analogy. :P

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

So you have no interest in the models and yet you feel confident to tell me I am wrong to doubt them. Why?

 

Really? Burden of proof lies on the accuser. You made a claim that climate models are not to be trusted. I only said you shall study them first. Burden of proof is on you. I don't have to do anything to prove my position as I have none.

 

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I have investigated the code and found it full of arbitrary assumptions and fudge factors

Well, sure you have. Would you be so kind as to provide examples, rather than keep making empty claims as you have been for the last 4 pages?

 

Edited by pavelcherepan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't need to, thank you very much. I have a very good inside into and making judgements on where a person is coming from. Now that may not really be scientific, but it is certainly on the mark!

OK. So you believe you can read minds. Well why not? It is not as if science seems to matter on this forum.

BeeCee - be clear - I am NOT arguing from authority. I am the one opposing that tactic. OK?
Not sure which 'agenda' driven conspiracy you are imagining but then, unlike you, I cannot read minds.

Quote

What you have written is all unsupported and rhetoric

Really? So the SM is 'unsupported'? Well I guess in this echo chamber maybe.

Quote

Many, and I really havn't the time, nor am I that interested in answering your continued unsupported claims, as against professional credentialled authority

HA HA!!! Yeah.
Which ones?
MANY!!! Waaahh!

Quote

You will investigate?? Impressive, but on what authority?


I don't need authority. I use the SM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051019001040.htm

Climate Model Predicts Dramatic Changes Over Next 100 Years

Date:

October 19, 2005

Source:

Purdue University

Summary:

The most comprehensive climate model to date of the continental United States predicts more extreme temperatures throughout the country and more extreme precipitation along the Gulf Coast, in the Pacific Northwest and east of the Mississippi. The climate model takes into account a large number of factors that have been incompletely incorporated in past studies.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02695.pdf

The physics of climate change: simple models in climate science Nadir Jeevanjee∗†‡ February 23, 2018 Abstract There is a perception that climate science can only be approached with complex computer simulations. But working climate scientists often use simple models to understand their simulations and make order-of-magnitude estimates. This article presents some of these simple models with the goal of making climate science more accessible and comprehensible.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.05870.pdf

Physics-guided probabilistic modeling of extreme precipitation under climate change

ABSTRACT

Earth System Models (ESMs) are the state of the art for projecting the effects of climate change. However, longstanding uncertainties in their ability to simulate regional and local precipitation extremes and related processes inhibit decision making. Stakeholders would be best supported by probabilistic projections of changes in extreme precipitation at relevant space-time scales. Here we propose an empirical Bayesian model that extends an existing skill and consensus based weighting framework and test the hypothesis that nontrivial, physics-guided measures of ESM skill can help produce reliable probabilistic characterization of climate extremes. Specifically, the model leverages knowledge of physical relationships between temperature, atmospheric moisture capacity, and extreme precipitation intensity to iteratively weight and combine ESMs and estimate probability distributions of return levels. Out-of-sample validation shows evidence that the Bayesian model is a sound method for deriving reliable probabilistic projections. Beyond precipitation extremes, the framework may be a basis for a generic, physics-guided approach to modeling probability distributions of climate variables in general, extremes or otherwise.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Plenty more to come my friend, but at this time I'm rather tired and hungry and debating/arguing with you is too much like arguing with religious fanatics...You know you will never get anywhere!

 

 

2 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 

BeeCee - be clear - I am NOT arguing from authority. I am the one opposing that tactic. OK?

Bingo!!! And therein lies your ignorance and obvious crusade. You are arguing as an amateur, on a open public forum open to any one that feels like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pavelcherepan said:

Really? Burden of proof lies on the accuser. You made a claim that climate models are not to be trusted. I only said you shall study them first. Burden of proof is on you. I don't have to do anything to prove my position as I have none.

Nice attempt to reverse the onus of the Scientific Method there Pavel.
Actually, no, it was lame.
The modellers are obliged to demonstrate that their models do the job and that is why they are also obliged to provide falsification criteria.
You knew that already so I really have to wonder what your motive is to carry on like that.

I am happy to provide examples. 
I also note that you still have not explained why you proclaim confidence in models you admit you have never seen. Is that 'faith'?
I also find it funny that you want me to prove some claim I make about the models (which I will do this evening) but you do not expect the models whci claim to model the climate of the planet to prove anything!
LOL. This is hilarious!
Anyway, sit tight. I will give you some of the internal workings of these 'models' (ie spaghetti code).
 

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Bingo!!! And therein lies your ignorance and obvious crusade. You are arguing as an amateur, on a open public forum open to any one that feels like it.

er no. Any reputable scientist will argue against the fallacy of argument from authority because it is contrary to the SM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I don't need authority. I use the SM.

But you don't seem to accept, or even understand, the authority that science or the scientific method generates.

Plus, your authority to further question anything seriously seems to be constantly diminishing.

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Pavel, BeeCee has very helpfully posted a couple of links to PDFs. Please see what I mean about random fudge factors, imprecision for iterative models etc.

Thanks BeeCee.

1 minute ago, Essay said:

But you don't seem to accept, or even understand, the authority that science or the scientific method generates.

It does not 'generate authority'. You really are getting desperate. Just admit that science requires evidence and opinion is worthless. You are only turning yourself into a pretzel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I am happy to provide examples. 

Then do so.

12 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I also find it funny that you want me to prove some claim I make about the models (which I will do this evening) but you do not expect the models whci claim to model the climate of the planet to prove anything!

Models come with supporting documentation and references in the form of mostly peer-reviewed scientific papers. They already did their homework. And your claims are still void due to lack of any evidence.

P.S. It's 5pm in Wollongong so you better hurry with your proof.

Edited by pavelcherepan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pavelcherepan said:

Then do so.

read above my hard coated friend. BeeCee has already helped me out but i said i will gather some more morsels this evening. I do not feel obliged to jump at your command however so maybe you should learn a bit about what we in the west call 'manners'.

i am glad you expect me to provide evidence. Funny you do not demand it from those who actually matter though, eh!

Edited by NortonH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

NortonH,

As you are arguing against what is the accepted and mainstream scientific understanding, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claims. You have kindly been provided with some resources, so please explicitly detail what your issues are. 

I assume also that we can now drop the facade of this being for your son? 

 

Edit:

I would also like to request that all members cut out the hostility and generally poor attitude displayed by some in this thread. If you have a problem with something, report it. Do not take it upon yourself to call it out. It is not your job, and it helps no body. I will be giving people official warnings if this continues. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:
!

Moderator Note

NortonH,

As you are arguing against what is the accepted and mainstream scientific understanding, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claims. You have kindly been provided with some resources, so please explicitly detail what your issues are. 

I assume also that we can now drop the facade of this being for your son? 

 

Iodine, please read the thread above.  I explained that what my son is doing is going on elsewhere. Once I started investigating with him it sparked my interest because it became clear that all is not as open and shut as we were led to believe and i am now pursuing this for my own interest.
I have already stated that above and once again here.
Is that enough?


As you are arguing against what is the accepted and mainstream scientific understanding, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claims.

What claims are you referring to? My claim that argumen from authority is a fallacy? Or my claim that I have yet to find anywhere a usefully accurate model of the planets climate?
I have been provided with links to models but so far nothing has fulfilled the criteria I just mentioned.
I will keep looking but the fact remains that if predictions are being made about the planet there needs to be a global model and the onus is on the modellers to provide, not on me to seek it out.

Out of interest do you have any pronouncements on the rejection of the SM and the apparent acceptance of argument from authority as being valid?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NortonH said:

It does not 'generate authority'. You really are getting desperate. Just admit that science requires evidence and opinion is worthless. You are only turning yourself into a pretzel.

So is there any authority you accept.  The evidence is there, but what meaning can it have unless it is collectively understood.

~

This quote is from the end of page 3, but to continue....

20 minutes ago, Essay said:

Do you think there is "NOT solid evidence to back up the authority"  of the IPCC or the many scientific and technical organizations around the world?

Apparently not, but is it the evidence or the authority that you can't accept?

~

Edited by Essay
font size
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Essay said:

So is there any authority you accept.  The evidence is there, but what meaning can it have unless it is collectively understood.

Not sure how many more times i need to repeat it - if there is evidence there is no need for authority, if there is no evidence then authority is worthless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Not sure how many more times i need to repeat it - if there is evidence there is no need for authority, if there is no evidence then authority is worthless.

So when is there a need for authority?  When does authority become worthy?

edit:  By your logic, authority is only worthy if there is evidence,  but then it is not needed.  Pretzel much?

Edited by Essay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Essay said:

So when is there a need for authority?  When does authority become worthy?

edit:  By your logic, authority is only worthy if there is evidence,  but then it is not needed.  Pretzel much?

Final attempt - argument from authority has no value ever.

I will explain my logic, you explain yours. Rewriting what I write and misrepresenting it as my opinion is just lame.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Final attempt - argument from authority has no value ever.

I will explain my logic, you explain yours. Rewriting what I write and misrepresenting it as my opinion is just lame.

As long as the authority is valid, argument from authority is part of the scientific method, isn't it? 

You might be confusing the authority that science generates with the fallacy of an individual who claims his own authority,  or some unvalidated authority.

See how the internet defines this:

(argument from authorityappeal to false authorityappeal to unqualified authorityargument from false authority).     Description:  Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.

It is the underlined part that differentiates the arguments by science from  those arguments by overly enthusiastic folks on the internet.

...or differentiates the ("relevant") authority of science from the ("false") authority of overly enthusiastic folks on the internet.

~

Edited by Essay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

er no. Any reputable scientist will argue against the fallacy of argument from authority because it is contrary to the SM.

Er yes: Argument from authority, as long as that authority is credentialed in the relevant discipline  is not only welcome and desirable, but also as I keep telling you, an everyday occurrence, both within the science field and outside it. But naturally to accept that fact, immediately sinks your argument, claim, crusade and denial.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

Nice attempt to reverse the onus of the Scientific Method there Pavel.
Actually, no, it was lame.
The modellers are obliged to demonstrate that their models do the job and that is why they are also obliged to provide falsification criteria.
You knew that already so I really have to wonder what your motive is to carry on like that.

The modelers [nice to see you recognise that fact finally] have done their job based on years and years of observation, new data and successful predictions. It is you claiming they havn't any model, then ironically claiming that what models they do have, do not stand up to "your scrutiny" Yes, the onus is on you as per the scientific methodology.

 

Quote

I also note that you still have not explained why you proclaim confidence in models you admit you have never seen. Is that 'faith'?

This is getting rather boring and as it is prolonged, supports more and more, the premise of you being burdened with an agenda. Again, personally, as an amateur, I certainly to an extent, take on trust, the models of reputable, credentialled and professional opinions within mainstream,  the same as we all, including you do also.
 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

Global warming predictions prove accurate

Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

more at link

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#702880446614

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcasefailure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right.

 

more at link.....

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241%3ATEOTAW>2.0.CO%3B2

Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity

Abstract

Radiative convective equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity is computed as the asymptotic state of an initial value problem.

The results show that it takes almost twice as long to reach the state of radiative convective equilibrium for the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity than for the atmosphere with a given distribution of absolute humidity.

Also, the surface equilibrium temperature of the former is almost twice as sensitive to change of various factors such as solar constant, CO2 content, O3 content, and cloudiness, than that of the latter, due to the adjustment of water vapor content to the temperature variation of the atmosphere.

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C. Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NortonH said:

I have googled for models many times but all I ever find are huge computer simulations devoid of testable criteria.

The testable criteria is "does this model accurately model climate". This is then tested by modelling past periods where we have data on the inputs to the model and measurements corresponding to the outputs of the model.

When the model doesn't match, it is modified to correct for the errors or missing factors that caused it to be wrong.

Before you get on an aeroplane (a much riskier thing, in the short term, than thinking about climate change) do you insist on first seeing the aerodynamic and structural models used to build the plane? Do you ask what criteria were used to test these models? Or do you .... trust in the expertise and authority of those who did the work? Just asking ...

3 hours ago, NortonH said:

Nowhere is there a model which can make credible predictions about the climate of the planet in 100 years time.

Is it hot in here because of climate change or because your pants are on fire? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Essay said:

As long as the authority is valid, argument from authority is part of the scientific method, isn't it? 

NO.

Glad to be able to clear that up for you.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

When the model doesn't match, it is modified to correct for the errors or missing factors that caused it to be wrong.

That is training models with back testing.

I can give you a model which correctly produces all last years lottery numbers. Would you care to bet on it producing next weeks numbers?

 

Well I have been through all the models suggested by those links and they all attempt to model different components but nowhere is there a model which can be used to make predictions for the climate in 100 years time.

So my original question stands - What is being used to make the predictions we keep hearing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NortonH said:

 As you are arguing against what is the accepted and mainstream scientific understanding, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claims.

!

Moderator Note

The evidence you seek is in scientific journal articles and reports. These are assumed to be a given in the discussion, i.e. this evidence is already provided. If you think these conclusions are wrong, the onus is on you to provide the counter-evidence.

As for argument from authority goes, it is a fallacy when the authority is speaking outside of his/her area of expertise. A scientist presenting their results or discussing ramifications of their studies is not argument from authority.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, NortonH said:
3 hours ago, Essay said:

As long as the authority is valid, argument from authority is part of the scientific method, isn't it? 

NO.   

Glad to be able to clear that up for you.

All you have made clear is that you will accept nothing about the validity of science.

~

 

41 minutes ago, NortonH said:

...but nowhere is there a model which can be used to make predictions for the climate in 100 years time.

So my original question stands - What is being used to make the predictions we keep hearing?

They have instructions on the pages I linked to earlier.  You just set the conditions to what is expected (i.e. double CO2 levels) for whatever time frame you want to look at, such as 100 years. Then the model shows what average climate would be expected.

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

The evidence you seek is in scientific journal articles and reports. These are assumed to be a given in the discussion, i.e. this evidence is already provided. If you think these conclusions are wrong, the onus is on you to provide the counter-evidence.

As for argument from authority goes, it is a fallacy when the authority is speaking outside of his/her area of expertise. A scientist presenting their results or discussing ramifications of their studies is not argument from authority.

 

Argument from authority is a fallacy. Science requires evidence. So I really do not care how many moderators and 'senior' members of this forum pile on and try to tell me otherwise, it is not going to change the fact. 

Just consider what was written here -

Quote

 As for argument from authority goes, it is a fallacy when the authority is speaking outside of his/her area of expertise.

So please tell me how you measure and judge that. How do you measure and area of expertise? Is there an objective measure? etc Too ridiculous to bother pursuing. As I said above - if there is evidence then argument from authority is not needed and if there is no evidence then argument from authority carries no weight anyway.

It is funny to see people trashing their own credibility like this. A science forum where the senior members argue AGAINST the scientific method because they feel that they have to oppose some guy who is saying stuff they don't like but cannot refute.

6 hours ago, Strange said:

The testable criteria is "does this model accurately model climate". This is then tested by modelling past periods where we have data on the inputs to the model and measurements corresponding to the outputs of the model.

Tell me this then Strange, do these models contain any information in their configuration parameters which has been produced by the same data that is used for testing of past periods?

A simple Yes or No would clarify that for me.

 

6 hours ago, Strange said:

When the model doesn't match, it is modified to correct for the errors or missing factors that caused it to be wrong.

Well I think that line answers my question! The model is compared with the back test data, a discrepency is detected, the model is reconfigured to fit the data. Is that the process you mean or not?

4 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

The evidence you seek is in scientific journal articles and reports. These are assumed to be a given in the discussion, i.e. this evidence is already provided. If you think these conclusions are wrong, the onus is on you to provide the counter-evidence.

As for argument from authority goes, it is a fallacy when the authority is speaking outside of his/her area of expertise. A scientist presenting their results or discussing ramifications of their studies is not argument from authority.

 

 

What claims are you referring to? My claim that argumen from authority is a fallacy? Or my claim that I have yet to find anywhere a usefully accurate model of the planets climate?
I have been provided with links to models but so far nothing has fulfilled the criteria I just mentioned.
I will keep looking but the fact remains that if predictions are being made about the planet there needs to be a global model and the onus is on the modellers to provide, not on me to seek it out.

Out of interest do you have any pronouncements on the rejection of the SM and the apparent acceptance of argument from authority as being valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Argument from authority is a fallacy.

Yes it is. It is when you say 'my Uncle Geoff recons that dogs cant run backwards'...   or, Dr XYZ said that broccoli cures cancer' or Reverend Smith said 'Jesus is Alive!'.   

 

BUT - When you say..  '99% of the worlds experts say...blah'  and presuming you aren't lying and 99% of them HAVE said 'blah' after studying the topic in close detail using scientific methods to draw their conclusions -  this isn't an argument from authority surely? This is just relaying what science has discovered.

Edited by DrP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.