Discussion > Do computer models provide 'evidence'?
"globally the temperature is almost at a minimum, for the current inter-glacial"
"a rise of 1~2'C would get us back to an average level"
What reconstructions and proxies do you trust enough to tell you that?
Raff
Why should he answer you when all you want to do is to find something wrong with it? (©Professor Phil Jones)
Big Oil
Typical body swerve from you, there, Raff. Why should anyone answer your questions when you refuse to answer theirs?
So, to repeat: to refer to the original question, and the subject of this thread(?), “Do computer models provide ‘evidence’?”, I repeat: the only evidence obtainable from a model is whether or not the input parameters were correct. You obviously disagree, so explain what other evidence do you believe is also available.
(I am inclined to agree with you RKS, but SandyS does have a good point.)
Radical Rodent
RECAPITULATION
I started this discussion thread with the desire of understanding a BH poster's view that it was incorrect of Matt Ridley to say that climate models don't provide evidence. Sifting through the postings on this thread, here is what I have gleaned. I wrote this up primarily for my own benefit but here it is anyway. Any points I've missed or got wrong, I'll be grateful to be put right. The overall conclusion is that Ridley was perfectly correct in what he said.
Matt Ridley was reported as saying:
"The evidence from computer modelling? The phrase is an oxymoron. A model cannot, by definition, provide evidence: it can provide a prediction to test against real evidence."
# It's obvious that Ridley was talking about scientific evidence.
# Scientific evidence is what confirms or disproves a hypothesis.
# Note - 'confirms'. We are not talking about proof here. That's a concept for courts, or for mathematics, but not for physical science. In science, confirmation of a hypothesis is always provisional.
# In any normal branch of science 'scientific evidence' that means empirical evidence - ie evidence obtained by observation or experiment in the physical world.
# So anything coming out of a computer model, validated or not, does not provide scientific evidence because it is not observation of the physical world.
# What comes out of a computer model is an illustration of the programmers' beliefs and hypotheses. The fact that the program may include discretised approximations of the partial differential equations governing the motion of fluids does not change that.
# If the model is validated by comparison of its output with physical reality - then it's fair to say that the programmers' hypotheses have been confirmed.
# For climate models, validation is essentially impossible because experimental runs of the real thing are not possible.
# Although validation is not possible, the converse is entirely possible. The history of the climate since 1998 pretty conclusively shows that GCMs cited by the IPCC are false/invalid/unfit for purpose.
Even if we are talking about evidence in general and not specifically scientific evidence, the same conclusions result.
Evidence is anything that you see, hear, or read that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
(Collins COBUILD English Usage)
So, whatever sort of evidence we are talking about (scientific, hearsay, circumstantial, ...), we can conclude:
# Evidence does not apply to things that might happen in the future. (Even though one of The Faithful might protest "Yes, but global warming is happening now".
#You can call what comes out a model a prediction if you wish (or a projection in weasel language). But calling predictions 'evidence' , whether dreamed up in someone's head, or coughed up by some million-line Fortran nightmare, is a misuse of language.
A final observation. Belief without evidence is faith.
Martin A
Raff
What reconstructions and proxies do you trust enough to tell you that?
The null hypothesis is that you prove me wrong!! Usually with a model?
SandyS
Copied and pasted but relevant I think!
New paper finds climate models unable to simulate the Holocene Climate Optimum & subsequent cooling:-
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/new-paper-finds-climate-models-unable.html
According to the authors,
"The model does not capture the mid-Holocene "thermal maximum" and gradual cooling to pre-industrial global temperature found in the data."
If climate models are unable to simulate the Holocene Climate Optimum, Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period, and little Little Ice Age over the past 4,000 years, how can they possibly be relied upon to simulate the Current Warm Period or to distinguish natural variability from anthropogenic?
RKS
Martin, is the summary a termination of the discussion? It would seem appropriate, as we are unlikely to say anything new after several days and even less likely to change each others minds.
I'll finish with a few observations that follow from your summary.
£ Ridley's and others use of Tol's models to support his contention that nothing need be done about CO2 should be objected to by you and others here as much as other uses of models. But there is no surprise that after days of discussion all but one failed to object, a failure that brings your whole contention into doubt.
£ Sceptics who believe economic doom (or even a mild dip in GDP) might follow the imposition of carbon taxes have no evidence ("# Evidence does not apply to things that might happen in the future") and exhibit only faith ("Belief without evidence is faith").
£ Those who claim to know the future course of climate (staying the same, rising, falling, new ice age) exhibit only faith ("# Evidence does not apply to things that might happen in the future"). We know nothing.
-----
Sandy, what a contrast. In place of encyclopedic support for your previous ideas, you can provide no evidence at all of your preferred temperature history of the planet, despite basing your whole belief system on that temperature history. As Martin says, belief without evidence is Faith. Join Radical Rodent and repeat after him, evolution is false, God is great! God is great!
Raff
£ Sceptics who believe economic doom (or even a mild dip in GDP) might follow the imposition of carbon taxes have no evidence ("# Evidence does not apply to things that might happen in the future") and exhibit only faith ("Belief without evidence is faith").
I got roasted here a few months ago by comparing the "Economic Catastrophe" mythology prevalent on the sceptic side with the AGW catastrophe. I don't believe in either, not to say I don't think there will be ANY climate or economic effects but I'm not a fan of catastrophism in any form. Humans are very adept at fiddling their way out of stuff.
TheBigYinJames
Raff:
“Ridley's and others use of Tol's models to support his contention that nothing need be done about CO2 should be objected to…” [sic] What is it with you and straw-men? You do not need a model to come to the conclusion that nothing needs to be done; just look at the hard, empirical evidence – CO2 continues to rise, temperatures do not. Why do we need to do anything (even assuming there was something that could be done) about CO2 when it is obviously not causing the problems that have been claimed? Unless, of course, you like to see governments throwing vast amounts of money on utterly pointless projects dreamt up by or for politicians and their families and friends.
While few (if any, but correct me if you know otherwise) sceptics believe there will be “economic doom” because of carbon taxes, let us look to Australia, where the tax has been repealed after 2 years of economic stagnation, and watch the results.
For your final point, you speak some sense, though somehow think that was not your intention.
My final point: you do make some rather fantastic leaps of logic! "...evolution is false..."? Where on Earth did I say that? All I said was that I doubt that there would be any evolution observed in the time-span I gave; all the arguments you used against it were of adaptation, not evolution, so my point remains valid until proven wrong. If you really want to gloat, talk to me in July, 3014, when your flying monkeys have carried me to your castle.
Radical Rodent
Raff,
You are the best proof of a model we have ever had here, I think it was Martin A who developed it first, you fail to disappoint on every reply.
Prove me wrong, or give up. I can give you as many references as you want but it would be as much use as pissing into the wind. You offer no counter evidence, as I said many days ago you have the reading* and debating skills of a 12 year old. You have offered no proof to counter what I have offered you.
*Take care, go back, and read what I said fully and in detail, particularly about proxies and cut and paste.
You can go here for some of the data http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
http://www.amjbot.org/content/97/9/1579.full
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure3.png
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Golden_Horde?lang=en
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Yuan_dynasty?lang=en
You'll have use your initiative for the rest, there are tools available to help you such as Bing, DuckDuckGo, Google, Dogpile and Excite to name a few off the top of my head.
Think about your statement on evolution, it is a theory (Entropic man or is it an hypothesis?) which fits the known facts, and is waiting for someone to come up with a better one. Just like any other theory or hypothesis.
In general terms TBYJ is correct that mankind globally muddles through climatic shifts and decline of civilisations however he is wrong if he thinks that everything continues as before. But I will only discuss that with himself, as I'll never get anything concrete to look at from you.
SandyS
With apologies for getting back on topic but there is an interesting post by Ross McKitrick at WUWT. Link below for those prepared to follow and read.
SandyS
Big Oil
I'm sorry to say I only just noticed your post, disproving with hard evidence is the last thing he'd do.
SandyS
With apologies for getting back on topic but there is an interesting post by Ross McKitrick at WUWT. Link below for those prepared to follow and read.
Jul 24, 2014 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS
As always with Ross McKitrick, very much to the point.
Notwithstanding the failure of models to get the tropical troposphere right, when discussing fidelity to temperature trends the SPM of the AR5 declares Very High Confidence in climate models
Haha. As Mandy Rice-Davies said...
Martin A
Perhaps everyone has finally tired of dealing with the adolescent Raff, who's been having a wonderful time upsetting the adults with his/her/its childish sophistry.
I've only made a mere 3 posts on this thread [I think] but just reading through 11 pages of 'oh yes it is - oh no it isn't' has been quite exhausting. Why nobody twigged this was sheer deliberate disruption, with no intention to engage in reasoned discussion whatsoever, I find hard to comprehend. This was classic troll behaviour, designed to dangle you on the end of a line of nonsensical arguments just for the hell of it. You guys used to admonish us with the acronym DNFTT - yet that's what you've been doing for the past 11 pages.
Anyway, all the best and here's hoping the thread wreckers will be tossed out a little more quickly on future threads :-)
RKS
I agree with the comments that conclude that models do not produce evidence. In simple applications where the model has been proven to be completely right all of the time under all conditions then there might be a case to argue. Climate science is not in that category.
It is interesting that in the last few days several papers are appearing that show that the climate models are wrong. The latest one is being discussed at Climate Audit and WUWT. Perhaps we are beginning to see the settled science crumble. I hope so.
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger's Cat,
I'd be interested to know what you think of the notion I expressed earlier.
In the case you mention ..." In simple applications where the model has been proven to be completely right all of the time under all conditions then there might be a case to argue"...
My suggestion was that, in such a case, any evidence provided by the model was not fresh evidence. It was essentially the same evidence that the physical world coughed up when the model was tested previously. So even in such a case, the model cannot be said to be providing evidence itself. In the same way that the notebook I recorded some instrument readings in cannot be said to be 'providing evidence' when I later make use of what is recorded in it.
Does that make sense?
"The Settled Science"? It never was science - it always was 'cargo cult science', masquerading as the real thing.
Martin A
RKS
Sorry, I'll try and refrain in future, I normally do.
SandyS
It's interesting that there are an increasing number of reports/studies which are saying well actually this part of your model/scenario isn't actually correct. I can think of several over the last 12/18 months normally to do with environmental benefits. The latest is being reported by WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/24/another-bemefit-of-global-warming-increased-forage-plants/ and the other is well actually you haven't modelled this correctly; again from WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/23/uncertainty-in-the-dirt-another-climate-feedback-loop/
Is it being dismantled one brick at a time?
SandyS
I thought DNFTT was only for Unthreaded and main blog posts. Isn't Discussion supposed to be the place where we feed them? Anyway, sometimes it's nice to take a troll to task, tire them out, make them do their thang until they're fed up. As long as it doesn't clutter the main blog, this is the cathartic place to do it.
As for Raff being a troll, I think he exhibits some troll tactics, but as usual I think there's something rescue-able. Remember, many of us were once believers, so the road back to the light of sanity should be our primary goal with believers. Explain carefully why they are wrong, if they choose to continue with the scientism, then that's their choice and they are going to feel very silly in 5, 10 or 20 years time when it becomes universally recognised the panic was false (The Ice Age Cometh!).
We should try to be enablers, even if it means a little bit of time wasted for us.
TheBigYinJames
You could be right, there TBYJ. I, too, was a sort of “believer” (my scepticism exists in bucket-loads, which means that few things hold my absolute faith – if it is a theory, it is always questionable, no matter how many hold it dear) until I raised the question of quite how CO2 does all its damage. While the question was never answered, the bile and vitriol that was heaped on me only made me explore the argument further, to eventually discover the truth of the scam, if not its full scope.
It also helps with debating skills (though, with me, that could be debatable) as we should be trying to get the message across as succinctly yet accurately as possible, and counter the often outrageous arguments against us.
Radical Rodent
Think you how would react if you heard there was a group of people "well funded and actively working to discredit science" in another area of science you hold dear. Say the development of space exploration. You've been told this group are the same people who burned books teaching evolution in schools because of their fundamentalist religious beliefs, the same people who oppose tobacco regulation because it's big business and the like it that way, and who oppose vaccination, etc etc. because their religion teaches them that all is God's will.
Personally, I'm bloody annoyed with them already, and I don't even know who they are. Who are they to drag us back to the religious dark ages with their financially compromised hoodoo? Science is the one true spear of light. I think they should be opposed, vocally and if necessarily, criminally....
This is the image that has been carefully prepared to describe us. This is why people like raff come here to wind us up, and jab us with sticks. He thinks he's attacking something which, in my opinion, deserves to be attacked! In another universe, I'd be shoulder to shoulder with him. Hell, at one time I scoffed at the poor god-fearin' deniers myself.... until I was forced to go find some evidence to counteract their lunacy for myself, and when I did, I found out I was wrong.
Unfortunately for us (and for humanity and science in general) - that picture - that caricatured evil enemy he's taking a pop at, it's not us. It possibly did exist a long time ago, as I said in another thread (and took an absolute roasting for it) the only voices back at the start who were heard WERE the people described. The industry lobbyists, the creationists, the big oil agitators. But they are not on this blog, they are not part of mainstream scepticism now. Some agitators on the believer side want to believe we're all like that, because it's easier to attack that ridiculous redneck right-winger position. It's much harder for them to counter a sustained statistical debunking of their cherished theories by calm, collected scientific brains.
Raff, we're not right-wing rednecks. I'm a trash-poor Glaswegian who loved science and was lucky enough to grow up in a society that had the money to send me to university to learn some. I own no shares in any company (except my own) I don't smoke, have no financial interest in fossil fuels. I'm not rich by any real standards. I just effing love science, and I hate it when it's being dragged through the sewage by a bunch of baby-boomer underachievers who call themselves scientists and think they're saving the planet. Science is better than that.
TheBigYinJames
I think that what is often put down to 'troll tactics' are communication issues involving people who are highly intelligent but inexperienced or unskilled at debate - particularly in debating with people of different backgrounds from their own. This can account for the abrasiveness and needless confrontation. The postings may seem disruptive but I am guessing that disrupting a discussion is rarely, if ever, their motivation for posting.
There often seem to be hints of borderline Aspergers making themselves evident. That would tie in with the level of obsessiveness often exhibited and the lack of insight into the views of others.
Martin A
TBYJ/Martin A/RR
I came from a poor background, and was interested in how stuff works, being without electricity** when I got interested in music in my teens I built a battery powered stereo amplifier to go with a Philips battery powered portable record player. The main aim was to increase power but it was a devil to debug. I should have heeded to warning and not got involved in test engineering. Reading and listening to the BBC radio services was a wonderful alternative education to that supplied by the Scottish education system.
That background has led me to always try and confirm what people use as evidence (Entropic man is good at supplying links to where he gets his information and why he thinks it is right. I might not agree with him but that's another issue). What makes me class Raff and BB as trolls is that they obviously don't read links and go out of their way to disparage the fact you've taken the trouble tp confirm what you believe to be the facts. That is not debating or even arguing sensibly. Even the request prove me wrong is met with silence. If you hold something true then surely proving someone who disagrees with you wrong with counter evidence is what mature debate is about.
**That's why I hate windfarms for the grid, and would have installed an off grid system if I was still there now. I did even think about a home made solution in the late 60s but went to college and went no further.
SandyS
Well, it's my nature to look for exceptions or counter examples to just about anything I hear. And to expect others to do the same, so I tend not to say things that can't be backed up.
Even the request prove me wrong is met with silence.
I think it's a sort of cognitive impairment - reminiscent of what you sometime see in people with borderline Aspergers .
I would try to clarify what Raff was on about after he'd protest vehemently that what I had *guessed* was wrong but he would not come back to clarify when asked. Whereas any delay in answering his questions seemed to be interpreted as conceding defeat.
If you hold something true then surely proving someone who disagrees with you wrong with counter evidence is what mature debate is about.
As I said above, I put it down to lack of debating experience or a deficiency in basic debating skill - or (equivalently really) a communication issue.
Martin A
RKS
This might upset Raff, but I've been checking what I remember
My problem is I watch TV selectively and, since the arrival of the internet, have an alternative which gives instant access to the detail of things that pique my curiosity. I often end up somewhere where I didn't expect to go. I can recommend it.