3 ms·

I appreciate the reply. I happen to know some of the GRACE team, so I'm personally predisposed to respect their results. But, it's also significant evidence t

I appreciate the reply. I happen to know some of the GRACE team, so I'm personally predisposed to respect their results. But, it's also significant evidence that the retrieval was re-implemented by 2 other teams, one US, one German, with similar results. All 3 datasets are available to the community for comparison. About fig. 1 of [1]: Of the spectrum of important Earth system models, precipitation is the least well-described. For good reasons: highly non-gaussian, very local in nature, highly dependent on nonlinear condensation/temperature properties. Even in the continental US, precipitation is not well-described. Your remark about deciding on a bogus "uncertainty" of the mean precipitation in fig. 1 is absolutely correct. But it's of no use to be "skeptical about models" based on poor results of one class of models. The whole reason that paper was published is to draw attention to that fact! They literally say this in their conclusion. ("Most CMIP5 and reanalysis models are unable to simulate a consistent spatial and temporal precipitation pattern for the Antarctic.") I have come to believe that skepticism is somewhat empty as a value. That's why you have experts who know what the state of the art is, and what to be skeptical about.

credit_guy 8y ago
> But it's of no use to be "skeptical about models" based on poor results of one class of models This is not just "one class of models". This is the gain side of the gain-loss equation needed for the estimation of ice balance in Antarctica. If that side has an uncertainty 10 times higher than the stated result, then how can I not be skeptical? >That's why you have experts who know what the state of the art is, and what to be skeptical about. "Trust the experts" lead to the 2008 financial crisis. "Trust the experts" was what string theorists were telling us until Lee Smolin exposed them. "Trust the experts" is ultimately what religion is. >skepticism is somewhat empty as a value That's a surprising (for me at least) point of view for a scientist. I'm quite sure you wanted so say something else. Something like in your experience, those who describe themselves as climate skeptics (I mean in what other context do people declare themselves skeptics? I'm a skeptic about the dark matter as well, by the way) are simply obstructionists, or ignorants, or have a political agenda or something else. Since we are all more efficient forming Bayesian priors to work in life with, your Bayesian prior in this case is that "skepticism is an empty value". And that's quite fair. I happen to agree that a large part of "climate skeptics" are quite toxic. The way the Trump administration treats the EPA, or science in general seems quite deranged. But that doesn't mean you can't be genuinely skeptic. In this case skepticism has nothing to do with values. I simply approach this debate and I use my own heuristics. I don't know any climate scientist to use heuristics such as human character, you seem you do. For me, I apply other heuristics, based on my day to day work with models. I reached other conclusions so far than those that you reached.

credit_guy 8y ago

> But it's of no use to be "skeptical about models" based on poor results of one class of models This is not just "one class of models". This is the gain side of the gain-loss equation needed for the estimation of ice balance in Antarctica. If that side has an uncertainty 10 times higher than the stated result, then how can I not be skeptical? >That's why you have experts who know what the state of the art is, and what to be skeptical about. "Trust the experts" lead to the 2008 financial crisis. "Trust the experts" was what string theorists were telling us until Lee Smolin exposed them. "Trust the experts" is ultimately what religion is. >skepticism is somewhat empty as a value That's a surprising (for me at least) point of view for a scientist. I'm quite sure you wanted so say something else. Something like in your experience, those who describe themselves as climate skeptics (I mean in what other context do people declare themselves skeptics? I'm a skeptic about the dark matter as well, by the way) are simply obstructionists, or ignorants, or have a political agenda or something else. Since we are all more efficient forming Bayesian priors to work in life with, your Bayesian prior in this case is that "skepticism is an empty value". And that's quite fair. I happen to agree that a large part of "climate skeptics" are quite toxic. The way the Trump administration treats the EPA, or science in general seems quite deranged. But that doesn't mean you can't be genuinely skeptic. In this case skepticism has nothing to do with values. I simply approach this debate and I use my own heuristics. I don't know any climate scientist to use heuristics such as human character, you seem you do. For me, I apply other heuristics, based on my day to day work with models. I reached other conclusions so far than those that you reached.