Bishop Hill Mann, straw man and SciAm
Jan 10, 2012 Climate: Mann Climate: Models Michael Mann is in Scientific American today, with a podcast discussing computer models and the hockey stick man has a pop at Freeman Dyson:
I have to wonder if Freeman Dyson will get on an airplane or if he’ll drive a car because a lot of the modern day conveniences of life and a lot of our technological innovations of modern life are based on phenomena so complicated that we need to be able to construct models of them before we deploy that technology.
This is a bit of straw man, and Mann in fact goes on to discuss the fact that
we can’t do experiments with multiple Earths and formulate the science of climate change as if it’s an entirely observationally based, controlled experiment.
However, after a lot of words about how models are used, he returns to his strawman.
And again, does Freeman Dyson, assuming he is willing to get on an airplane even though models have been used to test the performance of the airplane, assuming he does and he knows he’s going somewhere where they’ve predicted, where weather models have predicted rainfall for the next seven days, does he not pack his umbrella because he doesn’t believe the models? It's just in that case the worst that will happen is somebody gets wet when they wouldn’t otherwise have. In this case, the worst that can happen is that we ruin the planet.
It's not desperately edifying, is it?
Reader Comments (125)
I had to send this to a friend who is an aerospace engineer with a major manufacturer (aka Boeing). He has discussed in the past how staggered he is by the slovenly practices of many so-called climate scientists.
Let's just his response was partly unprintable but he does not believe that Michael Mann and friends possess the basic scientific and technical capacities to make any reliable judgments about anything.... certainly not about what it takes to prepare a modern airplane for production.... hint: it is so much more than computer "models" Mr. Mann....
=======================================================================
That makes at least 4 people here who have some kind of background relating to aircraft... and in my case it is an indirect association.
Anyway, what MM stated was absolutely ludicrous because his own sloppiness is becoming even more obvious, even to someone without either an engineering or scientific background. To equate the use of a computer model to what happens in designing an aircraft, or a space capsule, or even a car, is just too much!!
The only thing that I can think of that equates to what MM was saying is that there are some people within the air industry who actually calculate how much freight can be on board, as well as the quantity of fuel that is necessary for a specific flight. This was a job that the weasel who is now the CEO of QANTAS had when he worked with RyanAir.
Your friend is not the only one who is totally unimpressed with Mann & Co with all of their sloppy work.
AusieDan said:
Which is precisely why he couldn't handle being faced with someone like Steve McIntyre. In order not to have to accept that he was intellectually outclassed, Mann had to convince himself - and others - that Steve was, first, stupid, then - when that was obviously false - "in the pay of Big Oil".
The only thing left is to accuse Freeman Dyson to be in the pay of big oil
If we can just keep Mann talking and writing letters to the editor, he (and Jones) will destroy any chance the team has to claim to be scientists.
This is Scientific American we are talking about. I use to love it in the eighties and it is definitely one of the things that got me into science in the first place. I've recently had a chance to flick through some of the issues from last year and all it seems to be now is advocacy and lobby groups paying for coverage. I'm not sure if this any different to 30 years ago but all the writers seem to be 'science journalists' with not that much actual scientific background. The last one I read had a nice Chris Mooney article on Frakking which seem to bring up all the old dubious claims that seem to be made around the whole area.
Rick Bradford
His problem is an emotional one, not an intellectual one.
I disagree -- In fact, I would put off his behavior to frustration of being unable to cope with the intellectual issues. He shows none of the cunning behavior you typically find in an intelligent but emotional person.
Don Pablo: I think that's exactly it. Intelligent but emotional people are more like Bill Clinton, rather than like Mann.
Before I got very tired of doing it, I was in the habit of sending stories to a liberal blogger who continually dismissed all, and I mean ALL non-peer reviewed science as "amateurish" and, obviously, not worth debating. He positively chortled with a very scientific glee about "amateur" surgeons operating on themselves, etc.
I didn't hear much from him after the blizzard of stories concerning amateur astronomers discovering comets, etc; amateur archaeologists discovering coins, etc.; hell, he didn't even like it when I sent him stories about middle and high school kids discovering things at science fairs.
I guess the point is that, yes, there are some sciences like medicine and engineering that you probably want a pro working at (although they don't always get it right: my brother had his colon cancer misdiagnosed as hemorrhoids for months...).
But I wasn't aware the Wright brothers, who were amateurs after all, used complex computer models.
More like real models they tossed around until they got it, er, right.
@ mac
"Michael Mann: a dwarf standing in the shadow of a giant"
I believe the appropriate scientific scale is a pimple on an elephants arse...
Riding in planes is a poor analogy from Mann's point of view (but what else would we expect from Mike Mann?) For years scientists have told us it is the vacuum above the wing that keeps the aircraft airborne. That does play a big part but it's a tad more complicated, engineers say. There are other factors involved that science has not yet fully understood.
Perhaps Freeman Dyson reasons like this: "I know planes work because I see them fly over my house every day. I know climate science doesn't work because long range weather forcasts are anywhere near right and short term one's aren't much better."
Just in case Hengist is still following this thread, here's "a piece of peer reviewed science that supports your [Phillip Bratby's] implication that climate models have zero predictive capability"...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/10/the-climate-science-peer-pressure-cooker/
...and also provides more insight on Dr Mann's approach to scientific debate.
'not banned yet'
"If this chap had any credibility left with technically educated people he just lost it."
nailed it mate. the team seem to be technically clueless (goverment also nat).
Very great topic sbobet . I wonderful that I found this sbo post.
...
...gone from a computer model to production without any intervening physical prototypes to test the model?
The space shuttle?"
Roger Longstaff Jan 10, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Spence_UK Jan 10, 2012 at 11:24 PM
OK - so there were wind tunnel scale models, not just computer models.
But there were no protoype flights prior to its first passenger caryying flight, solid rocket boosters and all. Nor to its first re-entry, with its human payload.
TerryS Jan 10, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Yes, I'd forgotten that. Dropped at subsonic (obviously) speed from a 747. Worth doing but probably less uncertain than hypersonic orbital insjection and re-entry.
Martin A, the Shuttle was declared 'operational' after four 'development' flights...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/story/ch13_prt.htm
...and the astronauts aboard those flights were test pilots, rather than passengers (N.B. ejector seats were also installed for the flights).
Mann's analogy vis a vis Dyson deciding to ride in airplanes is defective as an analogy to the choice. It is more like Dyson not having the option of riding in airplanes because their use has been restricted to the military by an agency which has decided that their provenance is insufficiently understood.
Instead, this agency has convinced government to impose significant taxes on industry and the population to pay for the construction and operation of very expensive, inefficient, ground based transportation systems no which Dyson will be "safe."
In Mann's climate world, Dyson would not have a choice. Isn't that really what has most of us uncomfortable?
edit to above "on which Dyson will be safe."
Popping off to somebody about 12 times smarter than you is probably a mistake, Mike. But hey, feel free.
@Dave Salt
That's about revised projections not about the predictive capacities of models.
@Curt Jan 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM
So your objection is political and economic not scientific
Why is it that advocates positioned as skeptics are unable to answer the question posed by Dr Mann. What alternative to models would you prefer? Ive tweeted Andrew Montford with this question, but ,sadly no response.
Models arent perfect but they give us some inkling of an idea of what may be in store. If advocates positioned as skeptics don't trust models then the onus is on those advocates positioned as skeptics to come up with better more precise models. After all it's advocates positioned as skeptics who are saying we should dig up the world's fossil fuels and dump them in the atmosphere. Can they point to a global climate model that says that will be alright ? No they cannot.
Hengist, you've read the reference I gave but clearly not understood what it implies: Michaels and his co-authors came up with modified models that did have better predictive powers than the originals. Their only problem was that they didn't predict the dire temperature increases that CAGW advocates believed in and so were chastised for their efforts.
The fact that models do not make reasonably accurate predictions should be telling the modellers that maybe they're missing a key mechanism (e.g. Svensmark's theory that cosmic rays affect cloud formation) and not that the empirical data needs adjusting; an approach they seem all to keen to follow if they don't get the results they originally wanted... 'jolly hockey sticks', as they say :-)
Hengist - obviously you know the one about the drunkard the lost keys and the lamppost. Same as with models.
Hengist, if you're still following this thread and are genuinely interested in this topic may I suggest you read this...
http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming
...which is quite straight forward and clear and may help you to better understand the situation that the modellers now find themselves faced with.
As a pilot I would of course not fly in an aircraft that had not undergone thorough testing. I could also name many aircraft, even very recent ones, that have performed worse or better than the models predicted. All the performance data we use to confirm that we can safely complete a planned flight are from flight tests, not from models!
As a Quality Manager, I am aghast at what goes on in much scientific research, but especially in climate "science". None of the research I have heard anything about would pass the quality system of any commercial air transport Air Operator's Certificate holding company - or any company approved by the UK CAA for that matter. The auditing process I manage would have rejected pretty much every piece of research used as evidence for CAGW.
I don't see what the problem is.
It's well established that Bumble Bees can't fly. Now clearly this model isn't a perfect match for observational data but if we adjust for the presence or absence of particulates in the atmosphere (ie liberally spray RAID) we get 100% match for the theory. QED