Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Campus freedom of speech | Main | Oreskes savaged »
Monday
Feb022015

Quote of the day, comedy climate edition

Mutual confirmation of models (simple or complex) is often referred to as ’scientific robustness’.

Alexander Bakker describes some of the axioms of climate modelling.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (30)

Overweight couples never tell each other. This is robust communication.

Feb 2, 2015 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Triune God disproved.
Both Shia and Sunni agree.

Feb 2, 2015 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMCourtney

Golly, this looks like someone at the start of their career in climate modelling has dared to think for himself a bit. Very promising, and very admirable in the rotten intellectual climate of climatology.

Feb 2, 2015 at 5:23 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

That the GCMs are inherently not fit for purpose is illustrated in essay Models all way Down in ebook Blowing Smoke, which has a foreward from the Dr. Curry linked to in this post. Throwing £100 million at UKMet for a faster supercomputer does not solve a two orders of magnitude computational constraint. Clouds are the second largest feedback. AR5 said they are not well modeled, and won't be for several decades if ever. See essay Cloudy Clouds. Yet IPCC went right on relying on CMIP5 models as if all was good. Now the 'pause' has falsified CMIP5 by the modeler's own written criteria (Santer 2011, >17 years variance between model prediction and observation). That merits more than just blogosphere attention.

Feb 2, 2015 at 5:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterRud Istvan

Mutual confirmation of a an inaccurate prediction has always been called systematic error hasn't it?

Feb 2, 2015 at 5:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterSean

Mutual confirmation of models (simple or complex) is often referred to as ’scientific robustness’.

Or in other cases as 'a circle jerk'.

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBloke down the pub

Or as a kid would say:

(With eyes covered) - you can't see me...cause I can't see you!

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMicky H Corbett

I.e. Confirmation that they are all wrong.

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

Real Climate Scientists confirm that in climate models, the most used, and useful tools, are the modellers.

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Golly, this looks like someone at the start of their career in climate modelling has dared to think for himself a bit. Very promising, and very admirable in the rotten intellectual climate of climatology.

Feb 2, 2015 at 5:23 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

John, shurely now someone at the end of their career in climate modelling?

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

My distrust of computer models relates to reviewing their potential use in regulatory toxicology over two decades. In that time I've never seen one that didn't turn up howlingly obvious false positives/negatives.

Hence, Salopian's Rules on computer models:
1. The accuracy and reliability of your model depends on the accuracy of the parameters on which it is based,
2. If you want your model to be 95% accurate, then you must be 95% certain of ALL of the parameters on which it is based,
3. If you are 95% certain of all the parameters, then why the f**k do you need the damn model?

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Good point, michael hart!
Like ski-ing accidents, when they occur on ski-ing holidays and are serious enough, always occur just before the end of said holidays.

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:50 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

I seriously doubt that such a thesis would be possible in an atmospheric/oceanic/climate science department in the U.S. – whether the student would dare to tackle this, whether a faculty member would agree to supervise this, and whether a committee would ‘pass’ the thesis.
Judith Curry

Probably would apply in the UK too?

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:56 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Any rational assessment of the validity of model "robustness" based on "mutual confirmation" would depend on the actual "make and run" of those models. If they, say, were based on a sufficiently different set of assumptions or implemented a clearly distinct methodology, etc. As I understand it, however, climate models are minimally different forks of the same code base (thus, nearly identical assumptions and methodology). Parameter tweaking does not provide sufficient distance to asses anything much. I could be wrong. Those in the know please comment.

Feb 2, 2015 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrute

Political correctness is mainly about not saying what everybody is thinking. Bakker is non-PC. We'll see how THAT works out for a career.

Bet Prince Charles doesn't like him, either.

Feb 2, 2015 at 8:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Proctor

Political correctness is mainly about not saying what everybody is thinking. Bakker is non-PC. We'll see how THAT works out for a career.

Bet Prince Charles doesn't like him, either.

Feb 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Proctor

Feb 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM | Registered Commenter Salopian

False negative and positive results: I call these in the climate discussion "Trenberth Events", from obviously Kevin Trenberth.

A Trenberth Event is not just a false negative or positive result. A Negative Trenberth Event is one in which something predicted to occur doesn't show up in observations; a Positive Trenberth Event is one in which something predicted NOT to occur, does show up. (Think mid-tropospheric hot spot for Negative, and the growth of Antarctic ice for a Positive Trenberth Event.) But a "TE|" is not just the unexpected result, but also the way a researcher/activist responds to the result: a Trenberth Event is dealt with by saying the OBSERVATION is wrong. (Think: the balloons and satellites don't measure accurrately, and the sea-ice extent is not what counts but the total ice mass of Antarctica - as measured by models.)

Trenberth Events are a hallmark of CAGW believers and End-of-the-World Revalationists.

Feb 2, 2015 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Proctor

"Mutual confirmation of models (simple or complex) is often referred to as ’scientific robustness’" - a circle jerk, as noted by Bloke in the Pub.

Exhibit A for today, Andy Revkin's Dot Earth blog has climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in the US responding to a paper about Argo sea data apparently showing 0.005 degrees C per year temp rise in the top 500 metres of ocean mostly in Southern Ocean which is equal to trillion continuously burning 100 watt light bulbs!! - such silly alarmism, why not 11 gazillion continuously burning matches!!! - but I digress:

"It is disappointing that they do not use our stuff (based on ocean reanalysis with a comprehensive model that inputs everything from SST, sea level, XBTs and Argo plus surface fluxes and winds)..."

and

"...sad that oceanographers are slow to utilize all of the available information to produce better estimates. They seem to take pride in… “exclusive use of Argo” data with no use of anything else,..."

Exclusive use of data? Heaven forfend.

Feb 2, 2015 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterWB

OT but I do hope this is true.
http://stopthesethings.com/2015/01/23/steven-coopers-cape-bridgewater-wind-farm-study-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-the-wind-industry/

Feb 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Recommended reading for Richard Betts?

Feb 2, 2015 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Should we be worried about the similarities between independently developed zombie movies?

Is this now considered a scientifically robust theory?

Feb 2, 2015 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterjaffa

The models seem to support each other in much the same way as a group of drunks with their arms around each others' shoulders. Individually they may be too inebriated to walk but collectively they can stagger around for a bit. I think mathematicians would call their progress a "random walk."

Feb 3, 2015 at 8:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

rule one of climate 'science' is , when reality and the models differ in value its reality which is wrong .

Feb 3, 2015 at 8:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Why is there no mean net temperature difference between the Earth's surface and its local ~30 m atmosphere?

NASA set out measure the first 50 ft, but decided to model it: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

Feb 3, 2015 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Robustly....... WRONG !!!!!

In climate science ROBUST just means that ALL the models (well, at least 97$%) ALL give the WRONG result !!

Feb 3, 2015 at 9:10 AM | Unregistered Commenterthe Griss

O/T Spikedonline have launched a campaign against all censorship in Britain's Universities

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/exposed-the-staggering-scale-of-censorship-on-campus/16658#.VNCPmi6xcbg

Censorship from the absurd petty pap pop song Blurred Lines by Robin Thick ,The Sun ,Sunday Sport, Daily Star Newspapers and Jelly Wrestlers, easy soft targets to the downright undemocratic even sinister when the University of East Anglia of ClimateGate fame their Student Union banning UKIP representation from their political debates.Use political correctness to gets political.

So Scientific Robustness does that include trying to counter Extremist indoctrination be it Left ,Right ,Christian, Moslem etc maybe but does it also mean cancelling a conventional routine reasoned Abortion debate at the Oxford Union after threats of violence.
Abortion is a very controversial heated subject obviously but discussing it isn't.

Wanna a good reason to be a Climate Change Denier if they can shut down the debate on Climate Change then what else can they shut the debate down on.

Zed, Entropic over to you.

Feb 3, 2015 at 9:59 AM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

Sh*t I'm getting old.
I can remember the days when researchers did some field work and/or laboratory work. They then proceeded to work up something which might mean something from their observations.

Nowadays, it's a matter of gazing at a monitor and playing with a keyboard.

If the model says it should be cold outside, you no longer bother to go outside to feel whether it is really cold.
If the outside temperature is higher than that predicted by the model, the solution is simple. Just lower the value you have been given for the outside temperature.

Feb 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered Commentertoorightmate

I can only imagine the frustration this guy was feeling.

Trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear comes to mind.

Feb 3, 2015 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterClovis Marcus

Oh, I've got a better Quote Of The Day - albeit slightly off-topic..

Well - not entirely - because it wa during the Sky News initiative 'Stand Up and Be Counted' - giving young people (i.e. students) the opportunity to quiz party leaders up close and personal.

Folks, you may need to put your coffee down, and at a safe distance....

Young man to Ed Miliband: 'What work have you done previously to being in politics..?'

Ed Miliband: 'Well, I was Economic Adviser to Gordon Brown...'


I've got nothing to add......

Feb 3, 2015 at 1:39 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

Sherlock, it's like being Bernie Madoc's integrity adviser. Nice catch.

Feb 5, 2015 at 11:16 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>