5 ms·

Tweaking the inputs would help one to identify what factor is causing the difference, which allows you to focus on that. It doesn’t mean you permanently leave i

by orev 7y ago

Tweaking the inputs would help one to identify what factor is causing the difference, which allows you to focus on that. It doesn’t mean you permanently leave it out. And it does not make a credibility issue. This is how science works — it is a process that strives to be as accurate as possible, not come up with a static answer and stick to it (that’s what religion does). The ability for science to change and adapt is what makes it so strong. That is the message that needs to always be driven when discussing science; not throwing hands in the air and saying “why do these scientists keep changing their answers? They obviously don’t know what they’re doing”

justadudeama 7y ago
These are valid points, and it is important to figure out what changes in the model is causing such a dramatic change and scrutinize it more. > The ability for science to change and adapt is what makes it so strong To me this article is them _resisting_ change, looking for a reason NOT to accept it, because it goes against what they previously said. Maybe this is all to early, and in a year or so we will be seeing 4 or 4.5 degree predictions, but this article describes them trying to change their inputs to match previous answers, not getting new answers.
- Angostura 7y ago
  Again, that's the way that science tends to operate - a la Kuhn and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions. You have some novel research that seems to contradict well-established consenus. It comes under close scrutiny, because science tends to be conservative. If after giving it a good kicking, its clear that the old consensus is wrong, science takes the wrecking ball to it. But it prefers not to get the wrecking ball out of it can help it.
  - freeflight 7y ago
    > You have some novel research that seems to contradict well-established consenus. It comes under close scrutiny, because science tends to be conservative. Indeed, even people we nowadays consider brilliant minds of their time, encountered plenty of resistance [0] during these very same times because their proposed ideas just seemed too outrageous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#A_Hundred_Authors_Against_Einstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_rel...
- turbinerneiter 7y ago
  If your model suddenly changes its predictions, you need to make 100% sure you know why and that is valid. Just imagine they would go public with this "Scientists found climate change is worse than previously thought with updated model" and then weeks later find an error in the changes made to the model "Scientists made mistakes, climate change less severe than previously thought". What do you think would hurt their credibility more?
  - hugh-avherald 7y ago
    Well this is the problem. People are reticient to make public a private finding that is different, because it is probably wrong and they'll probably lose credibility. But if everyone is doing that...
    - turbinerneiter 7y ago
      They are not reticent to make it public, they are publishing papers and are asking for peer review. There is a public newspaper article about it with quotes of the involved scientists. They couldn't be any more transparent about this. They are not throwing away their findings and they are not burying it. They are working to valdiate/invaldiate them, because they are scientists.
protanopia 7y ago
It certainly does hurt the credibility of people saying we need drastic changes now based upon the models. If the answer might change next year, then making a drastic change based upon the current projections seems foolhardy.
- take_a_breath 7y ago
  The answer is going to change every year, with new inputs from the prior year. That is how prediction models work. Using your logic would lead to never making any changes, which I don't think will really help.
- hnhg 7y ago
  They say we need drastic changes based on the best evidence we have along with given the likely outcomes if change isn't introduced. What you're saying is that you have established a prior that undermines all further evidence presented to you, because it has changed substantially in the past. However, that seems irrational to me.
- lucisferre 7y ago
  Yes it would be terribly foolhardy for us to stop polluting the atmosphere prematurely.
  - protanopia 7y ago
    Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
    - polotics 7y ago
      Too much of it is, as water in your lungs, or air in your beer: having too much of it will make your greenhouse too hot, the one you live in and cannot leave.
      - protanopia 7y ago
        But more than the current amount will help crops grow better and prevent people from freezing to death in winter.
JackFr 7y ago
But it should make the scientists more circumspect about public policy recommendations. They're not making evidence-based policy, if yesterday's models are evidence and today's models are not. > This is how science works — it is a process that strives to be as accurate as possible, not come up with a static answer and stick to it (that’s what religion does). That's fine. Many public policy advocates throw around the term 'settled science'. But based on what you said, is there such a thing?
- danieldk 7y ago
  But it should make the scientists more circumspect about public policy recommendations. From the article: Climate models have been doing a fine job projecting warming for a long time. A recent study compared models as old as 1970 with observations made in the decades since. Some models warmed up too much, and some too little, but 14 of 17 past projections turned out to be consistent with the measured path of global average temperatures. Scientists can not give definite answers in such complex systems, but it is the closest we can get in extrapolating the trajectory that we are on and computing what the effect of various measures is. I am not sure what else one could base policy on.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > That's fine. Many public policy advocates throw around the term 'settled science'. But based on what you said, is there such a thing? Yes, there is. Just because there is no absolute certainty, doesn't mean it's all just baseless speculation. Just because, as a matter of scientific methodology, atomic theory is not absolutely certain (i.e., we could hypothetically find evidence that contradicts the model), doesn't mean someone just made it up and it has no predictive power.
ColanR 7y ago
I think you're missing the point. From how I read the parent comment, the problem they see is how scientists are using the data available to them. When you make a hypothesis, you are supposed to validate or invalidate it based on its predictions - not change the predictions to fit the evidence. If you change your model (hypothesis) to fit the facts, your model is merely descriptive of the evidence that is already available, and useless for prediction - as proven by the act of changing the model. That's how science works.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Uh, you realise this article is about work in progress, right? If you want to cast it in the rigid hypothesis testing language (not a very good description of the actual practice), the description is this: A physically motivated modification to existing tools lead to unexpected results that are not understood yet. As part of figuring out the cause of the new result they are running a series of smaller experiments to test various hypothesis of what aspects of the modifications matters most for the new results. In effect, objecting to the practice of turning things off and on again is to object to the very notion of doing experiments, which is not very scientific.

by orev 7y ago

justadudeama 7y ago

These are valid points, and it is important to figure out what changes in the model is causing such a dramatic change and scrutinize it more. > The ability for science to change and adapt is what makes it so strong To me this article is them _resisting_ change, looking for a reason NOT to accept it, because it goes against what they previously said. Maybe this is all to early, and in a year or so we will be seeing 4 or 4.5 degree predictions, but this article describes them trying to change their inputs to match previous answers, not getting new answers.

Angostura 7y ago
Again, that's the way that science tends to operate - a la Kuhn and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions. You have some novel research that seems to contradict well-established consenus. It comes under close scrutiny, because science tends to be conservative. If after giving it a good kicking, its clear that the old consensus is wrong, science takes the wrecking ball to it. But it prefers not to get the wrecking ball out of it can help it.
- freeflight 7y ago
  > You have some novel research that seems to contradict well-established consenus. It comes under close scrutiny, because science tends to be conservative. Indeed, even people we nowadays consider brilliant minds of their time, encountered plenty of resistance [0] during these very same times because their proposed ideas just seemed too outrageous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#A_Hundred_Authors_Against_Einstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_rel...
turbinerneiter 7y ago
If your model suddenly changes its predictions, you need to make 100% sure you know why and that is valid. Just imagine they would go public with this "Scientists found climate change is worse than previously thought with updated model" and then weeks later find an error in the changes made to the model "Scientists made mistakes, climate change less severe than previously thought". What do you think would hurt their credibility more?
- hugh-avherald 7y ago
  Well this is the problem. People are reticient to make public a private finding that is different, because it is probably wrong and they'll probably lose credibility. But if everyone is doing that...
  - turbinerneiter 7y ago
    They are not reticent to make it public, they are publishing papers and are asking for peer review. There is a public newspaper article about it with quotes of the involved scientists. They couldn't be any more transparent about this. They are not throwing away their findings and they are not burying it. They are working to valdiate/invaldiate them, because they are scientists.

protanopia 7y ago

It certainly does hurt the credibility of people saying we need drastic changes now based upon the models. If the answer might change next year, then making a drastic change based upon the current projections seems foolhardy.

take_a_breath 7y ago
The answer is going to change every year, with new inputs from the prior year. That is how prediction models work. Using your logic would lead to never making any changes, which I don't think will really help.
hnhg 7y ago
They say we need drastic changes based on the best evidence we have along with given the likely outcomes if change isn't introduced. What you're saying is that you have established a prior that undermines all further evidence presented to you, because it has changed substantially in the past. However, that seems irrational to me.
lucisferre 7y ago
Yes it would be terribly foolhardy for us to stop polluting the atmosphere prematurely.
- protanopia 7y ago
  Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
  - polotics 7y ago
    Too much of it is, as water in your lungs, or air in your beer: having too much of it will make your greenhouse too hot, the one you live in and cannot leave.
    - protanopia 7y ago
      But more than the current amount will help crops grow better and prevent people from freezing to death in winter.

JackFr 7y ago

But it should make the scientists more circumspect about public policy recommendations. They're not making evidence-based policy, if yesterday's models are evidence and today's models are not. > This is how science works — it is a process that strives to be as accurate as possible, not come up with a static answer and stick to it (that’s what religion does). That's fine. Many public policy advocates throw around the term 'settled science'. But based on what you said, is there such a thing?

danieldk 7y ago
But it should make the scientists more circumspect about public policy recommendations. From the article: Climate models have been doing a fine job projecting warming for a long time. A recent study compared models as old as 1970 with observations made in the decades since. Some models warmed up too much, and some too little, but 14 of 17 past projections turned out to be consistent with the measured path of global average temperatures. Scientists can not give definite answers in such complex systems, but it is the closest we can get in extrapolating the trajectory that we are on and computing what the effect of various measures is. I am not sure what else one could base policy on.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> That's fine. Many public policy advocates throw around the term 'settled science'. But based on what you said, is there such a thing? Yes, there is. Just because there is no absolute certainty, doesn't mean it's all just baseless speculation. Just because, as a matter of scientific methodology, atomic theory is not absolutely certain (i.e., we could hypothetically find evidence that contradicts the model), doesn't mean someone just made it up and it has no predictive power.

ColanR 7y ago

I think you're missing the point. From how I read the parent comment, the problem they see is how scientists are using the data available to them. When you make a hypothesis, you are supposed to validate or invalidate it based on its predictions - not change the predictions to fit the evidence. If you change your model (hypothesis) to fit the facts, your model is merely descriptive of the evidence that is already available, and useless for prediction - as proven by the act of changing the model. That's how science works.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
Uh, you realise this article is about work in progress, right? If you want to cast it in the rigid hypothesis testing language (not a very good description of the actual practice), the description is this: A physically motivated modification to existing tools lead to unexpected results that are not understood yet. As part of figuring out the cause of the new result they are running a series of smaller experiments to test various hypothesis of what aspects of the modifications matters most for the new results. In effect, objecting to the practice of turning things off and on again is to object to the very notion of doing experiments, which is not very scientific.