4 ms·

> They go digging for explanations like oceanic absorption, rather than adjust their models. Isn't oceanic absorption experimentally verified? So they did adju

> They go digging for explanations like oceanic absorption, rather than adjust their models. Isn't oceanic absorption experimentally verified? So they did adjust their models correctly -- the correct way was to model oceanic absorption. How else do you adjust models if not by finding processes previously not modeled, verify them and then model them?

allovernow 7y ago
>Isn't oceanic absorption experimentally verified You cannot experimentally verify oceanic heat absorption, the same way you cannot experimentally verify anything predicted by climate science - because the scale of such experiments make them effectively impossible. At best you can experimentally verify bits of theory on small scales - say, testing the temperature of a greenhouse with varying levels of CO2 - then combine those bits into a predictive mathematical/computational model, make predictions, and then perform measurements on the planet and look for results within a confidence interval. But you're taking a problem with a massive number of degrees of freedom and attempting to reduce the search space to a few dozen. This reduction is non-unique, which is to say there are a large number of ways to model a complex phenomenon like climate which will agree with past and present measurements, but fail to account for the actual drivers which will influence the future. This is partly why all climate models to date have been incorrect, and the fact that they consistently overpredict temperatures is a strong indication of institutional bias. >How else do you adjust models if not by finding processes previously not modeled, verify them and then model them? Excluding potential bias from researchers, there's nothing particularly wrong with this approach, it's the best we can do and given enough time and resources eventually such a search should theoretically stumble upon a correct, complete model, though this isn't necessarily practically achievable for many real world problems. But the issue here is that the confidence of such results should not be misrepresented, and that's the part that people who claim the "science is settled" are missing.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  Here is an article describing mechanism of oceanic heat absorption (something to do with changing gradient of surface layer exposed to infrared radiation affecting heat exchange) and referencing multiple studies that indicate oceans do heat up [0]. "Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006)" [0] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-gr... > Excluding potential bias from researchers [...] That's a good point. There is a potential for motivated reasoning bias, when you scrutinize evidence you don't like more, and stop scrutinizing evidence you do like earlier. But in this case effect is measured, verified and explained (as far as I can tell). And it makes models more precise. Is it possible that people looked too hard for negative feedback loops instead of looking for faults in already modeled processes? Maybe. But they did find such a loop and explained discrepancy. Now you need another discrepancy between model prediction and incoming data to see if anything needs adjusting.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  > You cannot experimentally verify oceanic heat absorption, the same way you cannot experimentally verify anything predicted by climate science - because the scale of such experiments make them effectively impossible. You can level the same complaints about general relativity, but for some reason folks rarely do. Wonder why...
  - mjfisher 7y ago
    That's not the same thing at all. General relativity makes incredibly precise predictions about very specific phenomena. There have been hundreds of separate natural observational experiments (transit of mercury to gravitational lensing) and plenty of human created ones too (every GPS satellite in orbit). Global climate science has it even harder than economics as an experimental science - we've got exactly one fully integrated system to observe, and we can't control for any of the variables. We can't re-run the same experiment again. We need to be objective and honest in how we communicate about climate science. Drawing false equivalences just undermines the very real and very urgent discussions we need to be having about climate as a species.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    No. We have measured time dilation by putting atomic clocks in orbit.

allovernow 7y ago

>Isn't oceanic absorption experimentally verified You cannot experimentally verify oceanic heat absorption, the same way you cannot experimentally verify anything predicted by climate science - because the scale of such experiments make them effectively impossible. At best you can experimentally verify bits of theory on small scales - say, testing the temperature of a greenhouse with varying levels of CO2 - then combine those bits into a predictive mathematical/computational model, make predictions, and then perform measurements on the planet and look for results within a confidence interval. But you're taking a problem with a massive number of degrees of freedom and attempting to reduce the search space to a few dozen. This reduction is non-unique, which is to say there are a large number of ways to model a complex phenomenon like climate which will agree with past and present measurements, but fail to account for the actual drivers which will influence the future. This is partly why all climate models to date have been incorrect, and the fact that they consistently overpredict temperatures is a strong indication of institutional bias. >How else do you adjust models if not by finding processes previously not modeled, verify them and then model them? Excluding potential bias from researchers, there's nothing particularly wrong with this approach, it's the best we can do and given enough time and resources eventually such a search should theoretically stumble upon a correct, complete model, though this isn't necessarily practically achievable for many real world problems. But the issue here is that the confidence of such results should not be misrepresented, and that's the part that people who claim the "science is settled" are missing.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Here is an article describing mechanism of oceanic heat absorption (something to do with changing gradient of surface layer exposed to infrared radiation affecting heat exchange) and referencing multiple studies that indicate oceans do heat up [0]. "Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006)" [0] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-gr... > Excluding potential bias from researchers [...] That's a good point. There is a potential for motivated reasoning bias, when you scrutinize evidence you don't like more, and stop scrutinizing evidence you do like earlier. But in this case effect is measured, verified and explained (as far as I can tell). And it makes models more precise. Is it possible that people looked too hard for negative feedback loops instead of looking for faults in already modeled processes? Maybe. But they did find such a loop and explained discrepancy. Now you need another discrepancy between model prediction and incoming data to see if anything needs adjusting.
snowwrestler 7y ago
> You cannot experimentally verify oceanic heat absorption, the same way you cannot experimentally verify anything predicted by climate science - because the scale of such experiments make them effectively impossible. You can level the same complaints about general relativity, but for some reason folks rarely do. Wonder why...
- mjfisher 7y ago
  That's not the same thing at all. General relativity makes incredibly precise predictions about very specific phenomena. There have been hundreds of separate natural observational experiments (transit of mercury to gravitational lensing) and plenty of human created ones too (every GPS satellite in orbit). Global climate science has it even harder than economics as an experimental science - we've got exactly one fully integrated system to observe, and we can't control for any of the variables. We can't re-run the same experiment again. We need to be objective and honest in how we communicate about climate science. Drawing false equivalences just undermines the very real and very urgent discussions we need to be having about climate as a species.
- jshevek 7y ago
  No. We have measured time dilation by putting atomic clocks in orbit.