Economic models fail. What of climate?

[SkepticLance]

 

Climate models are based on physical laws which HAVE to be obeyed. Economic models are based on filamentous rules that have loopholes and can be broken by fallible humans choosing to ignore/work round them. and the rules themselves are subject to change on a whim. this inherently causes error in any model based upon the rules which will result in complete failure of the model. also the feedback loops of people using the model to make changes to the system to get a more desirable outcome will affect long term predictions significantly.

 

 

All models are based on physical laws which HAVE to be obeyed. The problem is that we do not always understand the laws or the detailed way they are applied. Even economic models are based ultimately on physical laws which work through an immensely complex way to drive different human behaviours. Your statement does not in any way demonstrate that global climate models are correct within reasonable error limits. I suspect that there are a number of unknown elements that render climate models less than reliable.

 

Sadly IA, you are misquoting me. I have not said that models are no better than a ruler. When people respond to my posts with such a serious lack of understanding of my view, it makes me reluctant to try to answer them. Such misunderstandings make communication difficult, to say the least.

 

Let me try to lay this to rest. I made the point that I could predict warming using a graph and a ruler. And I can. Warming is a long term trend that shows clearly on even simple graphs. That is all the claim I made, and I am getting annoyed about people who accuse me from that simple statement of making claims that are ridiculous.

 

I have asked for something very simple. I have asked for proper scientific evidence that global climate models are producing correct outcomes. To do that requires data, not opinion, or quibbles about rulers, or pointing out that models, like people can readily achieve 20:20 hindsight. Good science people!

[iNow]

The problem is that we do not always understand the laws or the detailed way they are applied.

 

This point was also refuted already in Post #7.

 

I have asked for something very simple. I have asked for proper scientific evidence that global climate models are producing correct outcomes.

Post #7, this thread, page 1.

Edited October 22, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

One example of the less than perfect knowledge held by climate modellers is the cooling of Antarctica. When the first models were created, it was confidently predicted that the main continental land mass of Antarctica would warm at a rate about 3 times the global average, as has been seen with Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsular. However, observations showed a long term cooling trend instead.

 

Since then, several hypotheses have been created to 'explain' the cooling. At this point in time, no-one knows which are correct, or if all are correct, and if so, to what degree. The modellers are easily able to compensate for the cooling effect without understanding it fully, but this prevents them from being able to predict future changes in climate pattern as regards Antarctica.

 

Computer models cannot simulate small scale climate effects, and this has been ascribed to lack of computing power. However, models have not always been accurate on the larger scale either. Arctic sea ice melting is my favourite example, with 100% error factors.

 

In the last few months, several slow moving oceanic currents have been discovered, which are large enough in scale to affect climate. Obviously, these were not part of global climate models. Are there other unknown climate influencing oceanic currents? Maybe. Only time will tell.

 

We know that the world is warming, and over the last 30 years this warming is primarily of anthropogenic origin. Knowing this is happening and making simple predictions from this knowledge is easy. I can do that. However, a global climate model, run on a supercomputer, and costing mega millions, should be able to do far more. I still have not seen proper scientific evidence that this is happening.

 

Simply posting a whole lot of references, as iNow likes to do, showing a range of 'expert' opinions, is not the answer.

[iNow]

Simply posting a whole lot of references, as iNow likes to do, showing a range of 'expert' opinions, is not the answer.

 

I'm sorry, Lance. I still am not following your point. Exactly which of the references I presented in post #7 were "opinion?"

 

 

You are such a .... </circumventing infraction> .... really, you are, Lance.

Give me a frakkin break.

 

 

You bitch and moan about being scientific, then do nothing of the sort with your own posts. Please, just go away. You're a total </circumventing infraction> and you're a royal </circumventing infraction> who can't seem to </circumventing infraction>, and you're obstinate on top of it all.

 

 

Will someone just close this thread and put us all out of our misery?

[SkepticLance]

I agree with iNow about closing the thread. Once a participant descends to gratuitous insults, even hidden under </circumventing infraction> then we need to get the hell out.

[iNow]

I agree with iNow about closing the thread. Once a participant descends to gratuitous insults, even hidden under </circumventing infraction> then we need to get the hell out.

 

Yeah, I suppose it would be easier for you to agree with thread closure instead of actually defending your position or addressing the criticisms of it.

[SkepticLance]

Fortunately, I do not have to justify a position, since I am asking a question. What iNow objects to is that I recognise that I have not yet received a satisfactorily adequate answer.

[Mr Skeptic]

[...]Since then, several hypotheses have been created to 'explain' the cooling. At this point in time, no-one knows which are correct, or if all are correct, and if so, to what degree. The modellers are easily able to compensate for the cooling effect without understanding it fully, but this prevents them from being able to predict future changes in climate pattern as regards Antarctica.

 

[...]

 

In the last few months, several slow moving oceanic currents have been discovered, which are large enough in scale to affect climate. Obviously, these were not part of global climate models. Are there other unknown climate influencing oceanic currents? Maybe. Only time will tell.

 

This is where, as I pointed out, you are confusing models with data gathering. This is like saying, "hey we just discovered a big, heavy, dark planet that was messing up our predictions of planetary orbits. I guess that the theory of gravitation is crap!"

 

But what you don't see, is that this is actually evidence in favor of the models. That the models made "wrong" predictions, and that these "wrong" predictions led to the discovery of previously unknown ocean currents, just goes to show that the model works.

 

It also made one of those "unexpected" predictions that you keep asking for. Just that the "unexpected" prediction was not correct temperature predictions, but instead a previously unknown ocean current.

 

We know that the world is warming, and over the last 30 years this warming is primarily of anthropogenic origin. Knowing this is happening and making simple predictions from this knowledge is easy. I can do that. However, a global climate model, run on a supercomputer, and costing mega millions, should be able to do far more. I still have not seen proper scientific evidence that this is happening.

 

And this is where you again claim that you and your ruler are as good as complex climate models. Why then do you complain when people call you on it?

 

Simply posting a whole lot of references, as iNow likes to do, showing a range of 'expert' opinions, is not the answer.

 

As opposed to the unreferenced opinion of a non-expert who doesn't even answer criticisms? You could easily be Farsight in disguise!

[bascule]

Let me cut through a lot of the nonsense over the last few posts. I put up a legitimate query. If megamillion dollar computer models simulating economic change can fail so badly, why should we have faith in megamillion dollar models simulating climate change?

 

A demonstrable success record, as opposed to a demonstrable failure record?

[SkepticLance]

Mr Skeptic

To the best of my knowledge, the ocean currents discussed were discovered independently of global climate models, and were not discovered because of them. I agree that the models would be showing value if they led to such discoveries, although that would still not show predictive value.

 

On me and my ruler. You still don't get it. I can make simple predictions using that devise. However, a global climate model should do much more. I am waiting for details showing the models giving predictions that are not simple, and that are unexpected. I agree that I should not be the equal of a model, and I do not think I am. However, the models have to be able to do more.

 

I can predict from simple principles, and from what we know due to hindsight, that the world is likely to keep warming. I can predict that the warming will be lower atmosphere and there will be a cooling at a higher altitude. I can predict that the warming will be greater in the high Arctic. None of these predictions require a computer model. What I am asking, is what predictions the models have made that cannot be made from simple principles, and when were these predictions tested and proven to be correct.

 

Please don't answer my query with a list of references that would take me an unconscionably long time to read. If you have the data, you can post it as a quote, where we can all read it.

 

bascule

I am not an expert on economic models. I assume until informed otherwise, that the mega million dollar economic models had a good success record until the recent crash. Will climate models also crash? Only time will tell.

[iNow]

[bascule]

I am not an expert on economic models. I assume until informed otherwise, that the mega million dollar economic models had a good success record until the recent crash. Will climate models also crash? Only time will tell.

 

Only time will tell if the standard model will "crash" as well. In fact, we already know it will, like in the center of a black hole. Let's stop trusting it. Those silly physicists. They act all snooty like they know what they're talking about, then the next day kabam, everything we know is wrong!

[Sayonara]

Fortunately, I do not have to justify a position, since I am asking a question. What iNow objects to is that I recognise that I have not yet received a satisfactorily adequate answer.

 

Maybe that's because you won't commit to justifying a position.