Found this interesting, about the failings of models,
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
From what I've observed, it seems to go something like this:
I know I won't convince you of anything but just for the record, back in 2000 we heard directly from one of those misunderstood, misquoted scientists: "According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". . . "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. Those were his words, no-one else's. And yet this last year saw record cold and record amounts of snowfall. But when Fat_Boy points out that Viner was dead wrong, but has supported himself quite well on grants given because of scary predictions like that, the group says he is blind. When he points out that some of the undisputed science of global warming is actually disputed by many reputable scientists, the group accuses him of ranting. And when he points out that the temperature recording techniques used are at best flawed and at worst deliberately designed to produce a certain set of results, the group dismisses him as a conspiracy nut. When I say that science is all about asking questions and being skeptical, I'm told I'm being nostalgic, presumably for the bad old days when not everything was known about everything. For the record, this post was about group-think, not global warming. ;)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
When I suggested that science was about empiricle evidence proving a theory I was told thats bull, and in fact its about likely hood and statistics! :) I wonder if we ever went to the moon based on statistics or whether we wnt on Newtons laws that had been proved over and over again. I think what it is is there isnt much left to discover except stuff way out in the far reaches of space or the very inside of matter. Everything else is known thus its not possible to have an eureka moment today. All thats left is dribs and drabs, uncertainties, maybees, and quite possibly, too many scientists chasing too little valid research.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I guess you read about the overreliance on models and how dangerous this is? Thats the point. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As I understand his viewpoint, he thinks that since the models aren't 100% perfect yet, the researchers shouldn't even try.
No, thats what you think I think and you are wrong. I think models are useful in certain applicaitons, and their obvious limitations in other needs to be weel understood. For example the classic problem moddeling the transition of boundary layer flow from laminar to turbulent is utterly impossible depite being a relatively 'simple' applicaiton. I also know a model developed to study long shore drift. It became so diffictult and so many assumptions were made thet it actually became useless. And I am sure you would be happy to know that models such as these were not used in science as constituring proof of a theory. :) As for blaming the press Ian that absoloute cock. As you know lots of scienctsts have been the source of crackpot theories and have come out with outlandish wild claims that never come about.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
I also know a model developed to study long shore drift. It became so diffictult and so many assumptions were made thet it actually became useless.
So do you give up entirely, or do you keep refining it until it becomes useful?
fat_boy wrote:
As for blaming the press Ian that absoloute c***. As you know lots of scienctsts have been the source of crackpot theories and have come out with outlandish wild claims that never come about.
What? You mean crazy people could spout idiotic theories and get worldwide attention? Surely you jest! Yes, in any group of people, even the scientific community, some people will say stupid things. That's the way the human race works.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
I also know a model developed to study long shore drift. It became so diffictult and so many assumptions were made thet it actually became useless.
So do you give up entirely, or do you keep refining it until it becomes useful?
fat_boy wrote:
As for blaming the press Ian that absoloute c***. As you know lots of scienctsts have been the source of crackpot theories and have come out with outlandish wild claims that never come about.
What? You mean crazy people could spout idiotic theories and get worldwide attention? Surely you jest! Yes, in any group of people, even the scientific community, some people will say stupid things. That's the way the human race works.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Of course you keep trying, but you have to recognise, and publicise, known limitations. Especially if used in any kind of scientific endeavour. As for crazy old people, here is what one recently dead, not so old scientist said: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” - Steven Schneider It would seem that a lot of scientists listedned to his advice. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Of course you keep trying, but you have to recognise, and publicise, known limitations. Especially if used in any kind of scientific endeavour. As for crazy old people, here is what one recently dead, not so old scientist said: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” - Steven Schneider It would seem that a lot of scientists listedned to his advice. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
So the good scientists will come out and give the percentages and the error margins... The attention-seekers will spout their end-of-the-world speeches, and the middle men will make sure the line between the two stays nice and blurry.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
So the good scientists will come out and give the percentages and the error margins... The attention-seekers will spout their end-of-the-world speeches, and the middle men will make sure the line between the two stays nice and blurry.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Or the good scientists get their funding cut if they doubt AGW. The alarmists get feted, and those in the middle keep their heads down and just get on with their research and only mention their doubts in private. :) Which is what has been happening aparently given the statements some scientists have made since retiring. I found this quite interesting: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html[^] The big graph, half way down, shows whats happened so far since preindustrial times. It implies positive feedbacks arent in evidence and that all we are going to get is a 1.2 degree rise, which is no problem to anyone.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Or the good scientists get their funding cut if they doubt AGW. The alarmists get feted, and those in the middle keep their heads down and just get on with their research and only mention their doubts in private. :) Which is what has been happening aparently given the statements some scientists have made since retiring. I found this quite interesting: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html[^] The big graph, half way down, shows whats happened so far since preindustrial times. It implies positive feedbacks arent in evidence and that all we are going to get is a 1.2 degree rise, which is no problem to anyone.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Or the good scientists get their funding cut if they doubt AGW.
I would think the payout would be higher if they come out as deniers, since all of the big oil companies would be on their side. Anyway, you're turning a generic thread about computer models into your pet topic again, so I'm done here.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Or the good scientists get their funding cut if they doubt AGW.
I would think the payout would be higher if they come out as deniers, since all of the big oil companies would be on their side. Anyway, you're turning a generic thread about computer models into your pet topic again, so I'm done here.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You really think the oil industry is paying scientists to come out as sceptics?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I guess you read about the overreliance on models and how dangerous this is? Thats the point. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
When I suggested that science was about empiricle evidence proving a theory I was told thats bull, and in fact its about likely hood and statistics! :) I wonder if we ever went to the moon based on statistics or whether we wnt on Newtons laws that had been proved over and over again. I think what it is is there isnt much left to discover except stuff way out in the far reaches of space or the very inside of matter. Everything else is known thus its not possible to have an eureka moment today. All thats left is dribs and drabs, uncertainties, maybees, and quite possibly, too many scientists chasing too little valid research.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
I wonder if we ever went to the moon based on statistics or whether we wnt on Newtons laws that had been proved over and over again.
The good news for me is that, statistically speaking, Ravel was never born. ;)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
-
Its also dangerous to stick your testicles in a rotweilers jaws, but i dont see how that is relevant to this thread either. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
I wonder if we ever went to the moon based on statistics or whether we wnt on Newtons laws that had been proved over and over again.
The good news for me is that, statistically speaking, Ravel was never born. ;)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
Ravel's OK actually. He is very clever, quite challenging, and doesnt hold back when he thinks he has a point. I dont know how he annoyed you, but for me there are far more annoying people on CP. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Its also dangerous to stick your testicles in a rotweilers jaws, but i dont see how that is relevant to this thread either. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Actually it perfectly on point. "An overreliance on models can be dangerous." My little truism has as much use as that.
Since the article suggested moddeling was partly esponsible for the recent financial crash dont you think its a little more usefull a statement than 'running with a pointed stick is dangerouus' since: 1) Everyone knows running with pointed sticks us dangerous. 2) Everyone doesnt know some moddeling is inherently flawed. 3) Jabbing out your own eye could be considdered a Darwin award. 4) Nearly destroying the UK and US and with it Keynsian ecconomics, while being accoladed by some, is not so welcome by the millions who would have suffered hardship as a result.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Since the article suggested moddeling was partly esponsible for the recent financial crash dont you think its a little more usefull a statement than 'running with a pointed stick is dangerouus' since: 1) Everyone knows running with pointed sticks us dangerous. 2) Everyone doesnt know some moddeling is inherently flawed. 3) Jabbing out your own eye could be considdered a Darwin award. 4) Nearly destroying the UK and US and with it Keynsian ecconomics, while being accoladed by some, is not so welcome by the millions who would have suffered hardship as a result.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Since some modelling is flawed, modelling can never be used? Of course not. 3. Doesn't follow in any kind of logical progression. Reliance on models didn't cause the financial collapse. Greedy rich bastards did.
I can see you are taking this seriously. Sarcasm intended. You can dismiss the piece if you like, you are entitled to, but its always worth, in my experience, taking on board something new and over time digesting it. Then reject it or not after you have fully understood it.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I can see you are taking this seriously. Sarcasm intended. You can dismiss the piece if you like, you are entitled to, but its always worth, in my experience, taking on board something new and over time digesting it. Then reject it or not after you have fully understood it.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Since the article suggested moddeling was partly esponsible for the recent financial crash dont you think its a little more usefull a statement than 'running with a pointed stick is dangerouus' since: 1) Everyone knows running with pointed sticks us dangerous. 2) Everyone doesnt know some moddeling is inherently flawed. 3) Jabbing out your own eye could be considdered a Darwin award. 4) Nearly destroying the UK and US and with it Keynsian ecconomics, while being accoladed by some, is not so welcome by the millions who would have suffered hardship as a result.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
Keynesian Economics? Many will say to me in that day, John, John, have we not in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
Well, not being a 'denialist' I wouldnt expect it to. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Keynesian Economics? Many will say to me in that day, John, John, have we not in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
Yeah, OK, didnt google the exact spelling. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost