On models [in-depth]

Posted by 416246@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 8 comments

We all know that if we had a clock that was as useful for telling the time as the climate models have been for predicting the timing of rreversible and catastrophic impacts and phase changes in the climate we wouldn’t trust it to get us to an important event on time so what’s with their lingering prominence. This is not an assertion that there is no room for models but if feedbacks aren’t built in, and several interactions between systems not modeled for simplicity’s sake, why is there an expectation that the models will track with reality? And if it’s no surprise at all that the models are inaccurate why is so much oxygen in journalism used to state the deviation of reality from the models when the models were never very good approximations of observable data. It’s easy to get it close when the range is 0.5 but as we sail past 1.5 C warmer than the original date of 1750, it’s clear many scientists have no interest in reality. Climate change is only scientific matter where some of the loudest voices are more preoccupied with telling people how to feel rather than making any observable difference. We understand the greenhouse effect and climate scientists are starting to resemble coroners telling us in increasing detail about a problem where the outcome is settled. Or worse yet, watchmakers that can tell us about the time to the millisecond without acknowledging that they can no more speed it up than slow it down. We know what causes climate change, and besides anticipating risk by area, the use of models today has a pernicious function of some business as usual cheerleaders of promising that everything will still be okay even if we don’t treat things as if everything has changed.

Reply to Post

8 Comments

[-]

devadander23@reddit

What is this post besides also taking up oxygen? Strange to be blaming scientists when it’s capitalists and politicians who have fudged the numbers and forced the reports to be superficial. They were the ones to told you the goalposts were out there around 2100, and we’ll have the tech to figure it out by then. Scientists have been raising alarm bells since the 80s that we must change, stay under 350ppm CO2. It’s the politicians and the profiteers that lie to you, continue to lie to you, and cause you to blame the scientists.

[-]

416246@reddit (OP)

It doesn’t blame scientists it blames bad science and using it for applications it’s not well suited for. But thanks for your contribution.

[-]

ItilityMSP@reddit

You really don't understand the scientific process, and how media reports science. Here's a video from two prominent climate scientists... where they go over the various issues including whether scientist should be activists or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLq8e73-FAw

[-]

416246@reddit (OP)

Scientists ARE activist every day. Pretending science is neutral is sophomoric.

[-]

ItilityMSP@reddit

Have you ever done science, written and published a paper? I have as well as worked in university labs for years, so have an intimate knowledge of where a labs budget comes from. When looking for a cost-effective way to disinfect water of water borne parasites, in what way is this not neutral? What do you mean al scientists are activists. You realize scientists depend on funding to do their work, they are also specialist, so tend not to talk beyond their expertise, this all tends to make them conservative in their interpretation in public. Some scientists are beginning to risk their careers, others are doing the work we need both.

[-]

dumnezero@reddit

There's a nice write-up here that you should read: ### The belief that 1.5C "future warming" will be "safe" and the so-called experts spreading that misinformation and so much more Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/11wh4z0/the_belief_that_15c_future_warming_will_be_safe/ >I fundamentally disagree with the idea that there is such a thing as an expert at predicting the future. That desire has been present throughout human history and while their precious models can get some things right, some of the time, so could the Oracle of Delphi. Central to the concept of science is experimentation, the testing of hypotheses, and that cannot be done for a prediction about the future--all you can do is wait and see if it comes true. Lacking the ability to test their predictions climate modellers, like many in academia, turn to the statistical practice of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) in order to be able to perform a simulacrum of the scientific method. While criticisms have dogged NHST since its inception and in recent years [many have come to blame it as the cause of their field's "replication crisis"](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-018-0421-4), the practice persists [despite growing calls to end it](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9) because it is the only link fields like economics, psychology, and all forms of computer modelling have to their claim that they are a science and the stronger authority that designation carries. The worst part is that NHST is typically taught so poorly to non-statisticians that it is often not done correctly. [In his 2010 study Maarten Ambaum found:](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/23/22/2010jcli3746.1.xml)

[-]

Weirdinary@reddit

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLq8e73-FAw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLq8e73-FAw) This video was recommended on this sub. They discuss the climate models starting and ending around the18:00-23:00 minute mark. I think most scientists understand the limitations, but journalists and politicians are using these models as "proof" in order to not alarm anyone.

[-]

416246@reddit (OP)

Thanks that’s the video that made me decide to post.