Forums  > Off-Topic  > global warming poll  
     
Page 1 of 5Goto to page: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Display using:  

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-24 17:50
do you believe in the forecasts of climate models?

i'll start:

Yes: 0 No: 1

i'm skeptical of the climate modeling that claims of anthropogenic global warming are based upon. i'm happy to go into detail further down the thread if anyone wants, but my basic thoughts are that 1) "climate" is a long timescale phenomenon so we have a history of hundreds or perhaps a low number of thousands of independent climate observations, 2) climate models have so many degrees of freedom (such a high VC dimension) that they're unlikely to be correctly specified by the relatively small amount of available data, 3) the long timescale means that we've not lived through any out-of-sample periods and have no test of the models' ability to forecast. essentially, we're told "climate models have a good backtest, so invest now!". i've got other relevant thoughts, but that'll do for now...

my views are distinctly in the minority within the general population. i'd like to think that "i know better" because i have an unusual background within the general population - i'm a physicist who went to wall street and ran a stat arb book which gave me an appreciation for overfitting, for reasonable models that are great in-sample but don't work, etc. but lot's of folks on this forum have a similar background, so i thought it would be interesting to check if my view is common on np or if i'm just a curmudgeonly old fart :D

please update the count at the top of the post with your vote, and keep the count at the top of any reply you make to make it easy for other people to vote.

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-24 21:48
68 views and no responses?! surely a vote, which is adding 1 to the previous total, takes very little effort...

if anonymity is an issue, please use this google form https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pQQNrIZk_tGH8YCWQjnlgsqtsyVuQbhHovPj6s1ieUc it's my first time using forms, so please be gentle and vote only once.

nikol


Total Posts: 987
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2019-12-24 22:46
I voted NO.
However, it is not about ANY climate model, but specifically about The Global Warming scam.

goldorak


Total Posts: 1090
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-25 05:36
I voted NO too.

Issues:

- I tend to be very skeptical of scientists who said they "proved" something. The only ones who prove anything are mathematicians. In science you have to use the word "evidence". Physicists and partly chemists are the only ones to somehow approach the notion of proof (I mean there is still a guy making predictions 100 years ago who was proved right only a few years ago... Santa Claus )

- How do you establish modelization of a complex system with so little data at hand? I mean high altitude atmosphere measurements mostly depend on the existence of satellites which makes data availability very limited.

- Treatment of ground temperature data. A statistical approach is carried out on raw measurements to produce "filtered" data. This is a perfectly normal statistical approach, but how do we know what statistical model is the right one to apply? Based on our simulation results? Kind of feedback loop, is it not?

- A long history of "everybody is using the same software/libraries without thinking too much about it". Among others: shorelines modelization simulations built by US army corps of engineers or the recent excellent idea of placing a piece of dead salmon for fMRI. I am not mentioning any financial software here...


In the meanwhile if all this screaming around can bring some cleanliness (air, land and water), I take it.

@ahd: your poll will be very biased. How to unbias it depends of course, at it is general custom, on your initial belief.


If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

NeroTulip


Total Posts: 1061
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-25 05:36
No for me too.

I don’t believe that we are such a tiny minority. Many people with a scientific background can see the high dimensionality, lack of data, and sensitivity to initial conditions in these models. The predictions have very large error bounds, enough to make them practically worthless.

However, I would argue that the fact that we cannot predict the outcome is an argument for being cautious about releasing large quantities of carbon in the atmosphere. And definitely forget about geo engineering/solar radiation management, because that’s definitely unpredictable. Also, reducing all environmental problems to CO2 (the reductionist approach), is damn wrong. You never only move one variable in a complex system.


"Earth: some bacteria and basic life forms, no sign of intelligent life" (Message from a type III civilization probe sent to the solar system circa 2016)

AndyM


Total Posts: 2335
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-25 10:19
Yeah, it's not about modelling the system perfectly, it's about practicing sound risk management.

I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused...

Jurassic


Total Posts: 327
Joined: Mar 2018
 
Posted: 2019-12-25 12:25
freeman dyson has some interesting views on this

Maggette


Total Posts: 1212
Joined: Jun 2007
 
Posted: 2019-12-25 16:43
Well, I am not sure what "do you believe in the forecasts of climate models?" means exactly, but I am gonna vote yes. And I do so quite emphatically.

I hope the phorum will take my following rant not that personally. And I know I have an upopular opinion here.

I took a deeper look at the "climate change hoax". Like reading papers, downloading data and, to me most importantly, I reached out to some friends and former colleagues who work in the Institute of Energy and Climate Research in Jülich (Germany) and another dude from whom I learned a lot about Fortran, who also works in modelling and simulation of waves, weather and atmospheres.

And I am shocked. Deeply shocked. I am shocked by completely bogus "pro" propaganda movies like "An inconvinient truth", and I am even more shocked by actual "denial" of scientific results by people who should know better. Both sides are more or less driven by political agenda. It's a mess.

IMHO there are 3 stages of climate change denial:
A) It doesn't get warmer
B) It does get warmer, but humans don't play any/no significant role in it
C) It does get warmer, but humans do play a significant role in it, but so what? The effects of global warming on eco-system and socio-economic systems are unpredictable.

By the way, these three stages are mutual exclusive. You can be pretty sure you have an intelectual dishonest person if the person fields arguments from A), B) and C). And by the way: Dyson does so without blushing.


Under A) you I am not aware of anybody who could be taken seriously. Just look at the data yourself. I did. You have to look very deep to find pockets where it doesn't get warmer at an alarming rate.


here
here
here


But A) wasn't the topic here. Point B) is.

And here it gets absoluteley weird. Here we just meet a lot denial cloacked at "sceptism".

Look ahd, if you are questioning the predictive power of the ensembles of climate models (which you most definetly should), you can come to one and only one conclusion: that you can't know if the current climate change is driven by humans or not.....but I sense that that is somehow not the your point? And I take from your post that you are "sceptical" about the human impact ? But based on what? Your scientific gut feeling (" i'm a physicist who went to wall street and ran a stat arb book which gave me an appreciation for overfitting, for reasonable models that are great in-sample but don't work")? We already established that you can't conclude the the lack of existenc of human impact on climate change from the lack of trust in the current models. To get some meat behind your theory you need a model!!! And there have been models from "sceptics" in the early 90s. You will have a hard time googling them. Because they sucked. But they did exists. And they predicted an rather aprubt cooling. Which obviously didn't happen.

And what bugs me most: instead of talking about how bad these models are, just go look at them?
You can get the data here:
https://www.ipcc-data.org/sim/gcm_monthly/


It is kind of hard to navigate it, and I wouldn't have been able to do so without a friend from Jülich. But look here, I was pretyt much to reproduce that:

prediction power here

Some models have no 30 years out of sample. And it's not bad. Not fucking bad at all! I have the feeling this is "The Limits Growth" all over again. You know the left wing tree huggers that predicted that we would run out of oil in 2000s? Right? No. They actually never did that.
http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf Still everybody discredits stuff they said about "bad predictions" that never happend.

We have models which perform in median quite well out of sample and in sample. On capital markets "in sample fit" isn't that important. But his has some physical reasoning. IMHO I can condlude from that we have an rough understanding of what drives climate. And, again, we have no modles that perform in any way that neglect the human impact.

And here comes the sad part.

I don't think we would have the discussion, if the "pro human driven climate change" team ( I am actualyl on) would have a single honest bone about C) in them. C) is not extended physics. And it we don't have any useful models about socio-economic systems oder eco-systems that I am aware of. Take the narrative of "extreme weather events caused by climate change". I am not aware of anything that is remotely as well founded as the climate models that let us conclude that. You should look at Friederike Otto. She is making some progress there, but if you watch interview with her, she is quite cautious about here claims. Nowhere close to the stuff you read in the media after evrey hurrican, wild fire or whatever.


So in short: I do "believe in climate model predictions". I do not believe what everybody tells about C) though. This is all about risk management, as AndyM said.


Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln, und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk, lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...

pj


Total Posts: 3497
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-25 20:33
Thank you, Magette.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

nikol


Total Posts: 987
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2019-12-25 23:33

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths


especially this statement is worrying:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

"31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."


Somehow the uncertainty of results is large, while the main "scientific" argument is poll of scientists who "believe". Poll of (scientific) public becomes a substitute of solid proofs. Recently, I observe a lot of similar statements where public poll (like this one in the topic) wins over facts (or rather absence of solid facts is replaced with public opinion).

Pictures here are interesting too.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

See Google images: ipcc global warming
Predictions range wildly.

Our near future is "Left hand of Darkness" by Ursula Le Guin, rather than "Waterworld" movie. Unfortunately, I have to stress that my judgement is based on my belief because I am not an expert but just physicist and judge from physics point of view (e.g. sun is on cooling trend over last millions years).

Strange


Total Posts: 1639
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-26 01:58
@nikol

OSS foundation? Dude, seriously?

'Progress just means bad things happen faster.’

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-26 03:11
Maggette, you make so many points I don't know where to begin.

Let me start with a question: What's a good definition of climate, as opposed to weather? Let's resolve this first to make sure we're arguing about the same thing. In my mind, it's weather averaged spatially over the globe and averaged over a time window long enough to allow slow but important drivers to change materially and for feedback mechanisms to equilibrate. If we can agree on that then what's the minimum window length? I'd argue that it's no less than a century. What do you or others think?

Maggette


Total Posts: 1212
Joined: Jun 2007
 
Posted: 2019-12-26 03:59
Hi,

sure. I would say if you want to discuss the current state of the models we would have to settle for what is modeled in majority of cases. And that is the surface temperature averaged over the last 30 years.

I am not sure if I agree that much longer averages are that more informative in an instationary system. If you consider like say a nuclear winter a climate phenomena and not a weather phenomena this would probably get lost in a 100 year average.

But I am no expert either.

Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln, und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk, lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...

goldorak


Total Posts: 1090
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-26 05:19
@Maggette. I think your link to "prediction power here" is quite telling of the debate.

First of all, I find it hard to evaluate the qualities of a model based on an output as dumb and nonsensical as an average temperature. Then, and only if I accept to evaluate the models' results based on such an output, the results are clearly not impressive from my point of view and clearly do not tick the boxes. But from your point of view they look convincing. What to say? I do not think there is an easy way out of this.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time!

@all. Could we please stop with the word "belief"? That one should definitely stay within Vatican walls...



If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

nikol


Total Posts: 987
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2019-12-26 09:39
@Strange - there is no alternative. Where is voice of professional climatologist community?

If you look closer into that page (I hope you did), you will find that the scientific consensus is deeper and is going close to 95-99% of scientists saying 'yes' to Global Warming and human influence. Basically, scientists with opposite opinion did not get grants and got extinct.

It resembles twisting of banking models into "right direction":
If model delivers high capital, let's hire right quant.

ADDED.
we all know how this works


pj


Total Posts: 3497
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-26 09:49
My two cents.

Being the non-expert it is hard to dispense with the qualifiers
"I think" "I believe" if one wants to stay correct.

It's not like to prove the Black-Scholes formula to the "unbeliever."
That I can do.

It's becoming quite hip to doubt in that so overrated consensus.
Yes, we don't understand the all about the climate.
Yes, there will be contrarian scientists (thank god for that.)

But to tell us that the models are not perfect that's why we do not have warming
is like telling that easy money do not lead to financial bubbles because Black-Scholes model is unrealistic.

How to explain away the mechanism of how carbon dioxide
(and some other gasses) creates the greenhouse effect?
Together with current observations?

And no, the current levels are created by the fossil fuel

< edit >
I don't believe in the accuracy of the models, but I do believe in the climate
change.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

Maggette


Total Posts: 1212
Joined: Jun 2007
 
Posted: 2019-12-26 13:21
Hi Mr. Goldorak,

thanks to you for putting the time in.

"output as dumb and nonsensical as an average temperature." Could you elaborate a bit on that? I think the average temperature is a quite alright proxy for what it is supposed to measure.

Thx.

Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln, und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk, lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...

goldorak


Total Posts: 1090
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 09:07
@Maggette. Listen, just accept that regarding premises and assumptions, what is required for a model to be validated, what is required for a forecast to be validated, what makes sense to be analyzed or not, you accept certain things and I do not. Nothing more.

The consequences of accepting shaky theories to set dangerous policies in motion and sit dangerous people in power are far too high. Personally, only convincing evidence and near perfect reliability of models would incentivize me to encourage such actions.


If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

Maggette


Total Posts: 1212
Joined: Jun 2007
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 15:31
Hej,
I think you got me wrong here.

I actually was trying to nudge you into opening up a bit about some of your technical and philosophical approaches to model validation.

On this phorum you often comment very sceptical on classical back test results (simple single train test split....and then mindlessly iterating over that split until randomly finding that works out of sample Evil Smile ) or even cross validation. And I have never found a post on that topic I didn't agree on.

I have a python project where I generate signals of different complexity and different signal to noise ratio to test my model validation techniques. And I got much more defensive after this experience.

But to me it is also quite important on how "black boxy" that stuff is. I have a lot of "real world" applications that predict (and sometimes control) physical systems or some "cyborg" of humans and machines. And there I get away with a lot of less, because it's not just a purely data driven model.



Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln, und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk, lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...

jslade


Total Posts: 1206
Joined: Feb 2007
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 16:19
My best guess for what is actually happening, is that there is some CO2 related warming.

There is also (obviously) a huge industry of millenarian lunatics who would have been circus tent preachers in a previous era, telling everyone that we're all doomed who are wrong as soon as they open their mouths. For example, the most apocalyptic sea level rise predictions are something on the order of a centimeter a year, yet Ph.D. educated hard science people have expressed concern that I recently purchased a condo near the ocean (85 meters above sea level FWIIW; not that I give a shit -pretty sure 2-3 meters would have sufficed). Combine that with the tribe of gibbering idiots who, every year, no matter what the weather/fire/crop-circle/arctic conditions, see that as proof positive that we're all going to die of "climate change" immediately, and the tribe of mountebanks selling papal climate indulgences or attempting to sell obvious horse shit like airplanes which run on batteries, and I can understand why numerate people would be a bit leery. I've even had allegedly serious people attempt to tell me the war in Syria and resettlement of refugees in Germany is an inevitable consequence of "climate change."

Really it would be nice if we could pump less shit into the atmosphere in general, but as the solutions proposed all involve bird-slaughtering pinwheels, coal fired electric automobiles and (nasty toxic don't work at night) solar panels, I can't take those people any more seriously than their predecessors in the Club of Rome.

Which is a shame really, as there are real environmental problems, and I doubt we have the ability as a civilization to identify them because of all the idiots involved in this conversation. Like, maybe I'm dumb, but this seems kind of risky to me:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/20000-feet-under-the-sea/603040/

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."

NeroTulip


Total Posts: 1061
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 17:05
AndyM put it more eloquently than me. It’s not about predicting the system perfectly, it’s about risk management.

Things that worry me more than global warming:
- particulate matter pollution from coal burning, forest fires, Diesel engines, etc
- plastic entering the food chain
- pesticides and other ridiculous chemicals with unknown effects
- 5G radiation levels
- ...

"Earth: some bacteria and basic life forms, no sign of intelligent life" (Message from a type III civilization probe sent to the solar system circa 2016)

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 17:51
It's funny... The general public overwhelmingly believes in human-caused global warming. The NP respondents overwhelmingly do NOT believe in the models, at least, but haven't weighed in on whether they believe in human-caused global warming. I wonder if it's 1) because we have a healthy skepticism of in-sample, high dimensional models or 2) because we're mostly contrarians in the first place (and that's why we're mostly reversion traders)?

Tongue partially in cheek...

pj


Total Posts: 3497
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 21:15
Let me reiterate my question.
How the absence of the korrekt climate
model implies that the whole climate
warming is a hoax?
>
How explain away the mechanism of how carbon dioxide
(and some other gasses) creates the greenhouse effect?
Together with current observations?
>

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

pj


Total Posts: 3497
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 21:17
Double post

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

pj


Total Posts: 3497
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 21:17
Sorry, triple post

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 5Goto to page: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5 Next