So of what use is a climate change model
February 16th, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |that fails to predict this? I mean, weather forcasters can’t even predict 5 days out what the temperature will be, whether it will rain or shine, etc. How accurate can a weather model be that proposes to predict what conditions will be, globally, a hundred years from now…if it can’t accurately predict weather in the antarctic as it’s happening?
Is it okay if I question science when it’s wrong?
10 Responses to “So of what use is a climate change model”
By Paul Watson on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
As far as weather forecasts are concerned, the weather is a chaotic system, that is it can change very radically in the short term based on fluctuations too small to account for. Over the long term, these chaotic effects tend to smooth out, making long range, generalised forecasts more accurate than 5 day forecasts. So tht analogy is slightly incorrect, but a common one because it makes a certain amount of sense, but is not in fact a good analogy.
As far as the readings are concerned, that clearly means the models will need to be looked at again to take into account the fact that Antarctica is not behaving as expected. On the other hand, the sea levels are still rising, global average temperatures are still climbing at record rates and the weather is becoming more extreme, all in line with the predictions. So, yes, you can criticise the science, but it would be nive if you acknowledge all the things it’s predicted correctly as well.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig, did you even read this thing?
JMJ
By tos on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Jersey-Maybe if you stop breathing so heavy it wouldn’t be so warm.hahahahahaha!
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Paul,
Okay, assuming you meant to write “it would be nice if you acknowledge all the things it’s predicted correctly as well”, I hereby acknowledge all the things science has predicted correctly.
Still some questions though. On a macro scale, Newtonian physics predicts physical occurrences pretty well. Atomic and subatomic physics drops Newton into a blender and hits “Frape”. So has Newton accurately described the universe because he predicts most observable occurrences pretty accurately or is Newton wrong because the subatomic world makes hash of his theories?
On the subatomic level, special relativity predicts (or at least predicts that some predictions are not possible) things pretty well but, of course, one doesn’t have to be a scientist to know that special relativity is hash on the macro scale of physical events. So is special relativity right because it predicts the subatomic world well or is it BS because the world we experience every day operates under wholly different apparent conditions.
You see, predictive ability doesn’t necessarily translate to accurate description of mechanisms that allow those predictions. So are special relativity and normal relativity merely parts of some larger description that has yet to be proposed (such as string theory, about which I noticed a new book in Barnes & Noble entitled “Not Even Wrong”?) or are both hogwash that just happen to predict events within their own realm of physics?
I don’t know.
I’d just like to note that, when reading scientists’ reports, they are full of carefully delimited language, caveats, and concessions of uncertainties while, reading Summaries for Policymakers, it’s easy to understand how columnists can say things like “…global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers…”
And yet, elsewhere, we read that “[Global warming] stopped in 1998″.
When scientists’ models can show that they can accurately predict things that are actually happening on the globe today, I’ll believe that they have what will be happening in the world 100 years from now figured out. Until then, color me skeptical.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Yes. It’s hard to demonstrate a warming signal where it isn’t warming. I read it just fine.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig, c’mon man, you’re smarter than that.
Tos, that’s not me breathing. It’s the mass collective sigh of America after the November elections!
JMJ
By Paul Watson on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
To answer the question, Newtonian physics is still a pretty good basis and also is still considered fundamentally correct at the macro scale whereas quantum mechanics (not special relativity which is concerned with how space warps at light speed and not subatomic particles per se) functions pretty well at the subatomic level. At present, both are the best theories we have to describe the events as we observe them. The fact that they don’t smoothly reconcile is what scientists are looking at. It is entirely possible that there is no theory of everything that is comprehensible to our minds and maybe not even there at all, or it might be string theory, or loop, or multiversal membranes or it might be something completely unexpected.
And both the links are to opinion pieces which means they could say the sky is green with orange polkadots but that doesn’t mean they’re right.
I was only referring to global warming models which accurately predicted rising sea levels, and rising average temperatures. They failed to predict the rate of collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, getting it specatularly too slow, something none of the sceptics predicted either. Does that mean all of their theories are likewise complete bunk because they didn’t predict it? Perhaps you could be sceptical of all their claims that have not been correct either for a change.
By Paul Watson on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
And, Craig, from the article:
By Jersey McJones on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
And to add to what Paul is saying, the magnetic poles are ever shifting and dynamic, the ozone hole juxtaposed with the polar posistions causes all sorts variables, the migration of various pollutants to the South Pole, inparticular, causes all sorts of variables, and the extremes in temperatures makes it impossible to use any small temporal data sets to assert long-term changes.
C’mon, Craig, you get all this.
JMJ
By tos on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
“Tos, that’s not me breathing. It’s the mass collective sigh of America after the November elections!”
I guess we’ll have to wait and see if those collective sighs turn into collective moans.