Counting Cats on models

Climate modellers have created a plausible reality, not reality, says Nick M at Counting Cats.

Mathematics is an incredible toolbox and whilst it can be used to understand reality it can also be used to create new realities. For example it is entirely possible - indeed quite easy - to build a model of the solar system and then subtract Jupiter. The same perturbed Keplerian orbits pertain and the laws of motion and gravity are not changed because there is nothing in them to say “A gas giant must exist between Mars and Saturn”.

(H/T Chuckles)

Comments

[Peter MacFarlane]

As a great man once said (and another great man is fond of quoting): "The map is not the territory"

[cogito]

Watch this scientific piece on sunspots and climate. This guy really seems to understand what he says:

If you have a scientific background and you still believe in man-made global warming, get out a cup of coffee, a cup of tea, or a glass of brandy, whatever helps you think best, and watch the following lecture from the Cern, one of Europe's most highly respected centers for scientific research:
This lecture by Jasper Kirkby reviews the recent research that physicists have been conducting into climate change. Physicists have discovered that changes in the rate of cosmic ray inflow cause climate change and that solar activity shields the earth from cosmic rays. They haven't completely worked out the mechanism yet, but they think it has to do with cosmic rays causing cloud formation and clouds reflecting sunlight back into space.

When Kirkby gets to the screen showing Galactic Modulation of Climate over the last 500 million years and the cosmic ray variation that explains it, take a close look at the line that plots CO2 over the same period. Note that that line doesn't correspond at all to the temperature periodicity evident in the temperature data. Also listen when Kirkby points out that CO2 concentrations used to be 10 times higher than they are today.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists

[mick]

Well... the trajectory of 63 moons/moonlets all heading away from the immediate area would be *evidence* that jupiter (or something similar) existed. You could never 'prove' that Jupiter existed, but you could definitely say that "something" held the bodies in orbit before it was removed.

There will be artefacts, evidence, hypothesese that make havemore sensemaking powerthan others.

[Midgar]

These are blogosphere arguments, not scientific arguments. Anecdotes, apocrypha, and "gotcha" observations give a certain satisfaction, and help to explore the mindset of researchers, but research is constructed to be independent of the researchers.

Obviously models only represent a particular plausible reality. But it represents the best guess of a community, as all theories and predictions do. Pointing this out does not invalidate the model, nor does it assess the accuracy or sensitivity of existing models.

Whether or not to base policy on these models is a different matter, and not a scientific one. Too many commenters on this blog feel compelled to equate them.