4 ms·
I'm not saying models aren't tools of science. They are very important. However, the most important part of science is the part about independently recreating
by LargeWu 18y ago
I'm not saying models aren't tools of science. They are very important. However, the most important part of science is the part about independently recreating and verifying results. You simply cannot do that with long range climate models without waiting for that time to elapse and seeing if the model predicted what it was supposed to predict.
I'm not saying the models are wrong, or that climate change doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that calling the predictions of these models "science" is a bit misleading. The underlying factors maybe be based on scientific knowledge, but the models themselves are based on statistics, not science, because they can't be empirically verified.
- joeyo 18y agoIt sounds like you are arguing that science needs to be observational to be "real." I'd argue that science needs both observations and theory and that either half alone is incomplete. Think of the models as a manifestation of the theory. It would be nice if you could solve a set of equations for the atmosphere in closed form, wouldn't it? But you can't so you run a numerical simulation. Anyway, it's hardly surprising that so much effort has gone into theoretical climate science, since, as you observed, it's difficult running a controlled experiment with the atmosphere.