Deniers Vs Science

[Cid_Yama]

I will grant that since 1979 the weather models have become largely scientific, but PIOMAS is in essence in the last stages of Alchemy, not Science.  And the general circulation models are still simply Alchemy -- no longer quite Astrology.

Call them educated guesses, or call them prognostication -- but they are not science.  They will become science once they are repeatedly reproduced and their predictions have been demonstrated to reliably be correct.

Quite crazy.

At most it has to be reproducible not actually reproduced identically. Reproduced similarly is often better than identical reproduction.

And you honestly think there hasn't been any work on whether what PIOMAS shows bears up with measurements?

Model Validation and Uncertainty

PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered.  From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of  ± 1.0 103 km3/decade. The uncertainty of the  monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75  103 km3. Total volume uncertainties are larger than those for the anomaly because model biases are removed when calculating the anomalies. The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be  ±1.35 103 km3 .  Comparison of winter  total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover.  Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain.  Details on model validation can be found in Schweiger et al. 2011  and (here). Additional information on PIOMAS can be found (here)
A comprehensive library of sea ice thickness data for model validation has been compiled and is available (here)

Yeah, according to JW, then, my friend who went into astrophysics actually went into the arts or humanities rather than into a science, since he can't test repeatedly in a lab his theories about how black holes and white dwarfs etc behave in the universe.

I never mentioned anything about a lab, and the current creation myth is only partly falsifiable.  You can in fact run a very large number of experiments.  The Science involved is called Astronomy, and all you have to do to be an Astronomer is to observe.  I'm not completely convinced, however that Astrophysics is a Science.  There are way too many untestable assumptions, and it smells too much like the other religions for my tastes.

I will grant that since 1979 the weather models have become largely scientific, but PIOMAS is in essence in the last stages of Alchemy, not Science.  And the general circulation models are still simply Alchemy -- no longer quite Astrology.

Doubling down on an obviously dumb statement is not an improvement.

You do realize these general circulation models are the heart of weather prediction - don't you?  Their skill has limits, but alchemy?  You're on drugs.

PIOMAS?  And your analysis is based on what?  Which of the physical equations they're using do you dispute?  Have you published even the smallest part of your analysis of the flaws in PIOMAS?  Can you even name which physical equations the PIOMAS model uses?

Ignorance is not a position of strength from which to argue.

Models do quite well modeling what they were designed to.

Models that model gradual changes capture those changes quite well.  And any model pushed beyond it's design parameters will fail.

That is just a reflection of our current capabilities and understanding. 

As our knowledge and capabilities increase, our models improve or are replaced by better models that expands our knowledge even more. 

Deniers want to discredit ALL models for political purposes, because they don't like what they say.  They could care less about their capabilities.

Yikes at this thread recently and hostility towards scientists and/or climate models... I'd be happy to discuss PIOMAS more (submitting a paper soon on it), but not if the response is just going to be "all models are wrong."

Yes, it is disturbing to find comments that could come straight off the pages of WUWT here.  Dunning-Kruger effect where those that know nothing about how these models are designed or what's inside them somehow believe they know more than experts in the subject.

Fortunately it's only a handful of those that frequent here.

Yikes at this thread recently and hostility towards scientists and/or climate models... I'd be happy to discuss PIOMAS more (submitting a paper soon on it), but not if the response is just going to be "all models are wrong."

Actually, as far as I can tell PIOMAS is a very good example of Near Science.  It is the Scintismists I want to burn off.  I specifically want to kill anyone who makes even the slightest appeal  to Authority -- with the Authorities being first against the wall when the revolution comes.

I specifically want to kill anyone who makes even the slightest appeal  to Authority -- with the Authorities being first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Why of course you would.  Because when Those Who Know More about the subject step forward to block the path of the Republican Corporatists, it can be inconvenient for them.

In a world where most DO NOT KNOW, even a little, they have no choice BUT to appeal to Those that do know the most about the subject.

The Republicans want to replace Those that do Know being in a position of Authority on the subject, with their own political leaders, who don't appear to know squat, but support wealth accumulation above all else.  (That is how Religions work.  See the rise of the Catholic Church.)

Faith above Reason.  With the faith that wealth accumulation (and wealth concentration) is the highest good.

Republicans are at their core Fideists.

Yikes at this thread recently and hostility towards scientists and/or climate models... I'd be happy to discuss PIOMAS more (submitting a paper soon on it), but not if the response is just going to be "all models are wrong."

Actually, as far as I can tell PIOMAS is a very good example of Near Science. ...

PIOMAS is indeed science. The fact that it shows something some dislike for political reasons notwithstanding. Either way, offering to resolve any conflict with murder is a bit over the top.

I agree with sticking to the data.

Of course you do.  Uninterpreted Data is nice and safe.  Not saying what it signifies, doesn't get in the way of your biosphere killing agenda.

Keeps reason from impinging on your faith.

[Cid_Yama]

: Jim Williams  March 08, 2017, 03:41:30 PM

... the current creation myth is only partly falsifiable.  You can in fact run a very large number of experiments.

Explains a lot.

[longwalks1]

The phys.org https://phys.org/news/2017-03-arctic-sea-ice-doomed.html  is based on an original source.

Going back to the "Ice-free Arctic at 1.5 °C?" page and a half letter in Nature Climate Change by James A. Screen* and Daniel Williamson Department of Mathematics, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, UK  - a lot can be gleaned out of their references.     doi:10.1038/nclimate3248     

 

1. Adoption of the Paris Agreement  FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015); http://go.nature.com/2mmbWvt
2.   IPCC   Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
3.  Cohen, J. et al Nat. Geosci. , 627–637 (2014).
4. Wang, M. & Overland, J. E. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36,  L07502 (2009).
5. Boe, J., Hall, A. & Qu, X. Nat. Geosci. 2,  341–343 (2009).
6. Liu, J., Song, M., Horton, R. M. & Hu, Y. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110,  12571–12576 (2013).
7. Massonnet, F. et al. Cryosphere 6,  1383–1394 (2012).
8. Mahlstein, I. & Knutti, R. J. Geophys. Res. 117,  D06104 (2012).
9. Notz, D. & Stroeve, J. Science 354,  747–750 (2016).
10. Rogelj, J. et al. Nature 534,  631–639 (2016).

This is not the first paper (and this is actually just a letter) to arrive at dates in the middle of this century. 

FWIW at least they are not moving the goal posts and are using

when the Arctic first becomes ice-free at the end of summer; specifically, the first year when the average September sea-ice extent falls below 1 million km2.

No, I do not believe this paper will referenced much if at all 2 or three years hence.   However they do know a whole lot more about math than I do.

http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/mathematics/staff/js546        ##Dr. Screen
http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/mathematics/staff/dw356     ##Dr. Williamson

[Archimid]

I liked the conversation but the PIOMAS thread is one of the worst threads to have it. Because it was on such a bad thread I didn't feel like joining the conversation as to not derail that thread any further. I have derailed threads before and now that I'm getting the hang of the forum I realize how counterproductive derailing threads really is.

So to all involved in that conversation, please try to stay on topic. If you have something to say, start a thread or revive a more relevant thread. For me it's not easy to stay on topic but I'm making an effort because this forum is a really valuable source of information. Thread discipline is an important part of what makes it so good.

About models: I think that all models are wrong including the most fundamental models like e= mc^2, F=ma or D=st.  But that does not mean they can't be useful. The models are wrong in an absolute sense, but within the bounds of uncertainty they can predict the future and allow for amazing engineering feats.  In the case of PIOMAS, the model is definitely not perfect but it is pretty darn good for it's purpose.


About models being science: In the case of PIOMAS it absolutely follows the scientific method. PIOMAS postulates a theory using sophisticated math and with each passing day the theory is tested against the available measurements. It can do so with enough accuracy that following the PIOMAS model gives one a consistent idea of Arctic sea ice conditions. That's as science as science gets.

About scientists: I admire them with all my heart. The thousands of hours of disciplined learning and many hours of careful writing, coding and measuring are feats that I can only dream of doing.

That said, I disagree with the consensus. I think climate change will be abrupt and we are already seeing the beginnings of it. I think that many scientist that accept the reality of climate change deny the risk for abruptness for very real psychological reasons. Some do it to protect their credibility, others do it to protect others from panic, others do it because they simply can't handle living with this most terrible knowledge.

About climate change deniers: These are either ignorants or cowards(or both). Even the ones who convinced themselves that they'll make a profit out of this are ignorant cowards. Through their cowardice they are making climate change much worse than it will already be. I do take comfort in that if I'm right, nature will be dispensing justice to these people.

[DrTskoul]

You don't have to agree with the consensus. But what you have is just a belief/gut feeling. Might be right or wrong. Time will tell how abrupt will be.

Also many scientists just need days they can see and feel. This is they way they work and understand the world.

The "all models are wrong..." I have heard it so many times I hate it. Models are not wrong, they don't simulate 100% reality.  They simulate a simpler reality. That is where their power lies. You can understand what might be missing.  And also if what is missing is important. One can run a model with abrupt feedbacks and see what happens.
 

[Tigertown]

PV=nRT was always my favorite. Anything is only as good as the quality of the input. Most of the time, within a certain degree and for comparison sake, consistency is the most important. If you keep the same significant figures and standard deviation from year to year, then the trend becomes obvious. In regard to volume of sea ice in the Arctic, the trend is undeniably downward, for all seasons. Period. I am sorry that I don't have anything more sophisticated to say about the matter, but is it really necessary to.

[nicibiene]

In my opinion models are a two sided sword. They are a tool for scientist, but you always have to know about the inputs, not to get them wrong. Its the scientits baby somehow, he knows what the baby is made for, what was it made from. The problem is-climate models are getting named and they get a kind of own life-to doubt in them seems not popular. (I e.g. was thrilled when I read the model for AMOC included no meltwater from Greenland...)

It is a problem that most people and decision makers in politics are not scientists. They take the models as a serious prediction, not a science tool. I always have to laugh when I still hear politicians talk about the 2C aim... politicians are not used to think further than the time they got elected for. Facing climate change would need strong decisions (carbon taxes, strong economical changes). Unpopular decisions.

Somehow I feel, the tendency of denialism, nationalism and antidemocracy belong together.  It is the dark cloud of survival of the strongest that is coming over us...   scientists are only human, they have families, they know about the path we walk on, they face the thoughtless masses, borderless consumption, selfish politicians, they get disgusted and join the dark forces. That's it. 

[gerontocrat]

I have built models about all sorts of stuff. Their dependability depended on being able to test them in real life situations. They need to come with two main caveats :-
They indicate a probability that if a b and c then d will occur and allow these parameters to be varied to predict different outcomes.
They only work within limits. When those limits are exceeded all bets are off.

Politicians in general ignore the caveats at best, ignore all data at worst. I gave up.

[anthropocene]

I too didn't comment in the original PIOMAS thread because I didn't want to derail that topic.

But the original comments on the letter/paper  https://phys.org/news/2017-03-arctic-sea-ice-doomed.html made me angry. Why?
1) Because of the ad-hominem attacks on scientists/mathematicians. They don't deserve such abuse. I suppose we have to maintain free speech but espousing such views on this site and you can expect and deserve a lot coming back the other way.  Especially in these times when science and scientists are under attack from politicians in many countries. (I'm talking to you Pragma, Oren and Jim Williams).
2) The original post:

And then there is this astonishing bit of "science"

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-arctic-sea-ice-doomed.html

Are these people looking at the same planet that we are?

"Virtually Certain"? Really Who is paying these people?

Words fail me.

Seems to completely miss the difference between prediction and projection. Projection takes an assumption and then attempts to see what will happen if the assumption is true. In this case the assumption was that global temp is held to 1.5degC. No statement has to be made about the likelihood of the assumption actually happening. In that case, why do it? Because it fills in the picture of "what-if" scenarios which help decision makers do cost/benefit analysis on several options. Bill McKibben setup 350.org well after CO2 was over 350ppm. Are you going to attack him because reaching 350ppm CO2 is unachievable? Who do you think did the research that gave him the evidence to conclude that 350ppm is a "safe" value?