Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Men Model Climate, God Laughs

—

by

sherlockj
in

by James C. Sherlock

This is an ode to modeling and the inevitable contretemps in the comment section that followed Steve Haner’s article yesterday.

1.Time Magazine, April 8,1977. Two great modeling stories:

  • “Why we can’t beat the Soviets;” and
  • “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age”.

Perhaps we did all 51.

2. Cover of Science News March 1. 1975 

  • ”Our Ice Age Cometh.”

Science news?

3. Climate Scientist Bill McGuire. Ever wonder about those ice floes in the Delaware when Washington crossed it?

“What turns ice ages on and off? ‘The Ice Age cometh’ considers the potential impact global warming may have on the arrival of the next expected Ice Age. Will global warming fend it off or will it accelerate the onset of the next big freeze? Conditions on Earth during the great freezes of the Cryogenian and the most recent Quaternary ice ages are described and what triggers them considered, including the Croll–Milankovitch astronomical theory.

The Little Ice Age (c.AD 1450–1850) and the Medieval Warm Period (c.AD 1000–1300) are discussed along with the role ocean circulation (especially the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) has to play.”

McGuire also wrote in 2002

“The big problem with predicting the end of the world is that, if proved right, there can be no basking in glory. This has not, though, dissuaded armies of Cassandras from predicting the demise of our planet or the human race, only to expire themselves without the opportunity to proclaim ‘I told you so’.

Bottom line:

Measuring what is and has been in climate change has proven a lot more accurate and less embarrassing than modeling what will be.

As for the Soviets ….

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

63 responses to “Men Model Climate, God Laughs”

  1. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    a look at almost all climate predictions shows that from the start of alarmism–Al Gore–shows that they were catastrophic and wrong. As Yogi Berra once said, “it’s tough to make predictions, especially if they are about the future.”
    Models simply can’t capture the complexity of a chaotic system.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Toss scientific models that involve chaos theory…?? That is where the anti-climate change crowd is going these days..?

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        No one said toss them. As anyone with a little knowledge of models knows all models are wrong but some are useful. Climate models can be useful but not for precise predictions.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          the pedal hits the metal when skeptics opine on the work product of NOAA and NASA and related.

          the word “hoax” appears frequently in blog posts about climate in BR.

          In fact, I’ve seldom heard skeptics say what they actually do believe about the science…it’s often vague stuff laced with doubt and suspicion and links to climate denial sites provided.

          Middle Ground?

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            What skeptics are you talking about? How about Stephen Koonin?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Anyone who says that Climate Change is a hoax.

            Any website that attacks the science and promotes conspiracy theories
            that claim that most climate scientists are in cahoots and lying about it.

            None of those folks seem to allow that it’s REAL and has some serious potential and they know
            that some changes are possible, likely.

            But you seem to be willing to ask reasonable questions so I will stand by and discuss with you
            if that is your intent.

            Lay out how you feel about it and I’ll respond likewise.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            n my experience, this is a small percentage of skeptics. At the same time, there are incentives for scientists to go beyond what the science actually says. They do not help us understand near term risks and options for mitigating them. For example, the temperature record does not get presented with an explanation of its uncertainty and extreme weather events are too often reported by cherry picking the data.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            small percentage in BR?

            re: incentives –

            I’ve heard this but do not really understand it.

            I can see where scientists engaged in technologies are incentivized but how are scientists that are involved in stuff like climate, ozone holes, acid rain, mercury pollution, etc?

            In terms of extreme weather events, I agree. We truly don’t know if there is a connection or not at this point and some folks are eager to jump the gun on it.

            Some of this stuff IMO, is that once we see it and know, it will be too late.
            And that drives others to quickly claim it’s connected.

            Thanks for being willing to discuss on less intense terms.

          5. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            I don’t think many or any of the regular commenters on BR think that climate change is a hoax, meaning it is not real.
            Scientists who have been engaged in the IPCC and any subsidiaries get to travel to very nice places for meetings and get published in journals if they have papers that are consistent with the IPCC perspective. Many scientists who publish papers for the IPCC are not involved in writing the Summary and Synthesis Reports. Most of them do not subscribe to extreme views promoted by the IPCC leadership.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I read NOAA and NASA. Do you consider them extreme? Can you provide links to
            organizations that you believe are credible and not extreme?

          7. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            I didn’t say organizations were extreme but some like the IPCC have an agenda and some scientists present their work in a way that supports that agenda.
            The annual presentation of global temperature is a case in point. Nowhere is there a discussion of variability or confounding factors.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’ll agree that IPCC has lost credibility but there are dozens/hundreds of climate models and scientists that do this work and on balance most of them agree in general about climate change being real and happening AND they’ll also agree that they are not precise and exact by a long shot,

            I don’t understand conclusions like ” The annual presentation of global temperature is a case in point. Nowhere is there a discussion of variability or confounding factors.”

            that discussion DOES take place and it’s almost always one that provides a range of predictions and confidence factors that allow for even wider variations.

            It works a LOT like this:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba045566b28d7163ebd3fe21a2d754a82ff440a42e0746594a2fcff1ceee4300.jpg

            And what we seem to argue about sometimes is whether or not an actual hurricane exists because none of the models have been proven to predict an exact path – ergo – bad science and bad predictions, etc.

            Predicting a path of a hurricane has got to be a challenge for science and modelling and it’s clear the science is imperfect.

            But as you have said yourself, they still can provide valuable information , albeit even as we evacuate entire regions where the hurricane fails to strike.

            This is the argument made about climate models – to basically say that because what they are doing is complex and we see obvious errors… etc…l

            Why would climate models not have similar issues but still provide important and valuable information also?

            We’d never say take no action for a hurricane because all the models are wrong and none are correct.

            Some folks do. Some folks hold hurricane parties as a way of making a statement about the predictions.

          9. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Another straw man. Did anyone on here say that climate change is a hoax?

            Looking for more evidence of what might happen in the future is not the same as denying that sea levels have risen in Norfolk.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Are you asking if anyone in BR has said that Climate Change is a hoax? Au Contraire!

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Precision is not essential… 2 degrees over 50 years vs 1.5 degrees over 40 is not really not that important…

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            If you look at some of the comments made as a result of modeling exercises, the commenters are categoric. They hardly ever express their views in ranges or provide probability estimates.
            When statements are made about the global temperature being the hottest since the end of the Little Ice Age or 2nd hottest, those making the statements are conveying precision where it doesn’t exist.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You are conflating precision in measurements, which is actually fairly good and reliable, with precision in model outcomes which I think is a fair point but not terribly consequential to the overall findings.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You are making an assertion that is not correct. If you are saying that all of the measurements that are used in climate models have precision, you simply do not understand those models.

      2. disqus_VYLI8FviCA Avatar
        disqus_VYLI8FviCA

        Missing the point, as usual. Climate models have historically been horridly inaccurate, overstating the both rate and levels of change. The alarmists point to these models repeatedly as basis for “action on climate” that is both drastic and ill-informed. Why would anyone, without an agenda, lean on models that have always been wrong…in one direction? Zealots, certainly. Anyone else, hardly.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          FYI –

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b89bbbb54d51759773921d455502a2461730f5dc95263ff3e42f417044d00c3.jpg

          https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions#:~:text=These%20predictions%20have%20gotten%20much,ages%2C%20are%20considered%20more%20reliable.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          I will take they as a “yes!”…

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    We use modelling all the time for a variety of earth forces including weather and climate and those models are NEVER 100% dead on correct, but it’s a mistake to think that even with errors, they’re not useful.

    People’s lives literally depend on modelling.

    Anyone can legitimately be a skeptic but when someone says that there is ZERO chance of climate change that will be damaging , it’s like saying there is zero chance of a hurricane hitting a spot because they are so “complex” that they have never been 100% accurate.

    The car you ride in, is designed with models.

    The prescription drugs you take are developed with models.

    The design and operation of the electric grid including reliability is done with models.

    And Sherlock as a Navy guy, ought to know that virtually every fire control firing solution is generated from a model, including ballistic missiles that have to account for variables in gravity, weather, density, temperature, etc.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      You argue a case that no one made. It is called a straw man. Things that are true in other areas of life need not be relevant to this particular case.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Only arguing about models and their very wide use in our world to include weather and climate.
        Why would someone believe in models for some things and not others if they really don’t
        understand modelling to begin with? Many, many very complex things ARE successfully modelled and have been for years. And models can and are “validated”. Beyond that, one might disagree with one model but not 50. It would be like saying one hurricane model is not good, therefore all hurricane models are not good because we know none of them are 100% correct. That’s the rabbit hole IMO.

    2. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Your understanding of models is not applicable to climate change. The key thing you do not seem to comprehend is the number of variables.

      The examples provided have many fewer variables to be factored in. Climate modeling seeks to predict the future interaction of practically unlimited variables, known and unknown.

      I have never said that there is zero chance of climate change being real or potentially causing damage.

      Climate change may be happening to some degree, and may have a human component. I still don’t think it wise to become an irrational alarmist who advocates policies that take a wrecking ball to our economy and security.

    3. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Your understanding of models is not applicable to climate change. The key thing you do not seem to comprehend is the number of variables.

      The examples provided have many fewer variables to be factored in. Climate modeling seeks to predict the future interaction of practically unlimited variables, known and unknown.

      I have never said that there is zero chance of climate change being real or potentially causing damage.

      Climate change may be happening to some degree, and may have a human component. I still don’t think it wise to become an irrational alarmist who advocates policies that take a wrecking ball to our economy and security.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Neither you nor I really know how many variables are involved in climate or other models and some
        non-climate models are exceedingly complex with hundreds of variables.

        You say you don’t subscribe to the “zero chance”. Okay. Have you read some of the other
        commenters here who say it is a total hoax and none of it will happen?

        Why would you believe other science that also relies heavily on complex models with hundreds of variables but rule out one area as valid?

        1. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          “Neither you nor I really know how many variables are involved in climate or other models …”

          You are the one explaining modeling to us, and now you admit you don’t understand it?

          Might want to sit this one out.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I have some familiarity with some fairly complex models with a lot of variables. Like a 6 DOF models used for winged ballistic bodies:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88b5f08a5a28160dfc5f43e194c9d5266a0e42663a428795df35199d1c505cab.jpg

            I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I’m familiar enough with them to know they can and do model extremely complex movements with dozens, hundreds of variables.

            And they are validated and we do know how accurate they are and are not,

            It’s the same basic process for most things you’re trying to model, It takes both modelling folks and content folks (who understand what is being modelled), and others to get it right,

            As I said before, one can be a skeptic about one or two models but when dozens of models are replicating similar results , it’s a tough thing to say you don’t believe any or most of it.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Complex? As compared with modeling the entire Earth and atmosphere?

            I rest my case.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            ever try to model a 3-D vehicle that flies around the earth in 3d space with gravity, density, wind, temperature and other influences and hit a target within a few feet? or a vehicle that orbits then leaves orbit and heads off to Mars or around the moon and back? More or less complex? Probably in the same league but would you discount it entirely and claim essentially that the world’s scientists are engaging in a worldwide conspiracy to lie about it?

            I can easily buy that the models have errors in them, no question but to say they are so wrong that we disbelieve all of them because scientists are lying about the science?

            Nope. They could actually be wrong – in the WRONG direction – that it will be even worse and sooner
            than predicted. That’s the thing – one would just totally not believe ANY of it and call it a hoax?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        re: ” the number of variables” do you know how many variables are involved in things like satellites or ocean currents or ozone holes, asteroids headed to earth, etc? Do you know?

      3. Republican_X Avatar
        Republican_X

        I share your position. There must be models within models and unlimited variables. Many subject to the modeler’s own biases. The alarmism has pulled away focus on holistic environmental stewardship. We are literally strip mining the Earth to make batteries for electric cars in the name of reducing carbon emissions.

        1. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Very true.

          “Deep-sea mining for rare metals will destroy ecosystems, say scientists”

          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/26/deep-sea-mining-for-rare-metals-will-destroy-ecosystems-say-scientists

          I consider myself to be an environmentalist, but don’t side with environmental groups much these days. Their extreme positions are often detrimental in the long run.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ff5e341b5660be3331b4e47d5cfd4e2e7ac1c6b468a0fc8ba3c35ef054b6cead.jpg

    https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/predicting-climate/climate-models#:~:text=How%20are%20Climate%20Models%20Tested,see%20how%20well%20they%20match.

    1. William O'Keefe Avatar
      William O’Keefe

      You forgot to mention that in “hind casting” modelers use ” flux adjustments” to correct the model’s inadequacies. Also, the IPCC stopped using one of its scenarios because it was too extreme.
      Models and scenarios can be useful guides to understanding and policies but when policies presume their accuracy that is when real world problems are created. Look at the predictions that have been made since the late 1980s.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Model validation which includes hind casting identifies flaws and inconsistencies that then are fixed to improve the model.

        It’s done repeatedly over time to calibrate the models.

        Yes, that process does identify some models that are not good , that’s part of the process.

        It’s okay to look at one model or even several and determine they are not useful but when you have dozens, hundreds of models – pointing at all of the and saying they are “presuming accuracy”, etc, IMO, you’re abandoning the science all together,

        It would be like claiming that since no model for hurricane forecasting gets it right 100% of the time that none of the models are “accurate” or useful.

        One could make similar wrongheaded arguments about models used to predict ocean currents or orbits or rotations of planets, or plate tectonics,

        The field of climate science and climate modelling is just as legitimate as any other field of science that uses modelling, IMO.

        The idea that just this field of modelling is wrong and done by people who are lying and deceiving for a “belief” they have is just silly and wrong-headed.

        It reminds me a lot of how the cigarette companies went after scientists over cancer from smoking.

        We can debate this on a civil basis without impugning each other personally, right?

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    If you really want to fix a quality of life issue then come up with a national vehicle inspection sticker. 1000 miles from Virginia and set to expire in a week. One of you Republicans should see this as an unconstitutional impediment to free travel.

  5. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    It’s all about credibility. Scientists predicted that we were likely to see dramatic cooling that could result in a new, mini-ice age. More recently, scientists been predicting just the opposite. Because they made a major mistake earlier does not necessarily mean that their current predictions are wrong. But having failed before, some reasonable skepticism is warranted, especially for the timing and specific implications for warming.

    If journalism were still a profession where everyone’s claims were equally probed, we’d hear a lot more about this.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Scientists have “predicted” all manner of things from cancer to genetics to earth dynamics, etc and they don’t get it 100% right – EVER – but they DO get it calibrated… and over time a body of knowledge is developed that is accepted and then built on for further research.

      It’s not understanding how science actually does work that is part of the problem, IMO.

      There are liars and posers in science also and that’s why it’s important to NOT look at one study or even a series of new studies but studies that are dozens, hundreds, over 30-40 years are worth paying attention to.

      None of it is every the truth from on high as some folks seem to want to claim and then knock it down as a strawman.

      When you go to the Doctor and he/she does an image scan or a procedure or prescribes a therapy or operation or drugs, it’s based on the same kind of science that is used for other things in our world.

      And medical research is found to be wrong all the time…. as we do learn more ..and better calibrate it.

      It makes no sense to just totally discard a field of science like climate science and claim wild things about it like it’s a coordinated conspiracy that has NASA, NOAA and other scientists around the world promoting a falsehood like it is a religion. That kind of stuff IMO is willful ignorance being driven by partisan stuff.

      The same folks that spent years discrediting the cancerous effects of smoking. That’s what is going on now, IMO.

  6. Carter Melton Avatar
    Carter Melton

    I began my hospital career working on institutioal strategy and development. Four years later wben I became the CEO, I pinned a 3×5 card over my desk. It simply read: The best laid plans of mice and men are often indistinguishable”.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Pediatric Oncology. God?

    FWIW, if you ever had a Harpoon on a pylon, you used my modeling.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Multidimensional, joint services war games for joint training and analysis used my modeling and simulation project.

      I did not recommend them for climate modeling.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Multidimensional, joint services war games for joint training and analysis used my modeling and simulation project.

      I did not recommend them for climate modeling.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Nothing with the word “joint” was worth what it cost. My favorite was JMPS which came in two variants, JMPS and JMPS-N.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          We send folks to sea with 24 thingy’s , each with MIRVs which are winged and manuever… and we say we can send them to dozens, hundreds of targets with pretty damn good accuracy – and I DO believe it and pretty sure more than a few folks trust that it does perform.

          And yes, I’d trust the same modelling folks to do other modelling, no contest.

          Models can and ARE validated before they get inserted into a fire control system.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          I can think of a “joint” that is worth its cost…😉

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Liberals simply refuse to believe that scientists, like doctors, lawyers and hedge fund managers, have their own agenda. They are driven by fame and fortune just like anybody else. Grants, tenure and a place on the speaking circuit all affect scientists. Saint Fauci was no exception and neither are the climate change alarmists. Everything they do and say has to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. In fact, the scientific method requires a skepticism that seems to elude liberals. So long as it reinforces their narrative, liberals love nothing more than turning scientific theory into scientific certainty.

  9. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    National or global issue, we are not supposed to talk about here, unless of course, RTD, a Virginia liberal rag said something about it, so that gave Steve the license to talk about it, and then James bought the license from Steve.

  10. Republican_X Avatar
    Republican_X

    Because of the vast complexity of the Earth as a system, surely there must be models within models. Each having a multitude of variables with rates and thresholds determined by? I am not in the community so I do not know the answer. I look at Climate Science as possibly being in one of Robert Park’s Voodoo Science categories. I believe this because of the fervent demonisation of skeptics. For the masses, climate change seems to have become religion. It seems that all objectivity is lost. The loss of this objectivity has had consequences that are worse than the theorized impacts of carbon emissions.

Leave a Reply

Read More