In order to test the value (accuracy) of any model created, you check it against observations. If it does not match observations, then the model is flawed and unreliable in predicting outcomes.Trent hink wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:45 amIn case there is any confusion about the conversation which has only just taken place, let me make it perfectly clear.
I described what scientific modeling is. Modeling is a tool used to help understand complex systems. That it can be sometimes be used to make predictions is only a secondary benefit and not the primary aim.
Matteo used his infallible logic to prove me wrong, and proceeded to say what scientific modeling is really all about, based on knowledge and facts he apparently just made up as he went.
I appreciate your patience in waiting for my reply.Trent hink wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:45 amI told Mateo he was full of bs, and explained that I had actually studied scientific modeling in university. I then asked him to submit whatever credentials he might have that might prove he is not just making things up.
I then pointed out the logical fallacy in his own argument with the following statement:
I am still awaiting a reply, but I am happy to hear anyone else's assessment of the simple facts just recently posted here in this thread.Trent hink wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:58 pmMatteo, please use your vast knowledge on this subject and apply it to the value of the "spaghetti models" used to predict hurricane paths.
Do you know that each line in the prediction comes from a separate model? None of the models ever precisely predict the storm's actual path, so by your logic these models are worthless and should all be thrown out.
Hopefully I can put this in an extremely simple manner.SimonP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:51 amMatteo believes that all models are junk because a model run prediction may not occur. He does not understand the concept of an ensemble which gives an estimate of the probability that an event will occur. For example, we are currently watching Cyclone Uesi. Forecasters run the weather model many times with slight perturbations of the input conditions. At the moment, it looks as if it will run through the Tasman Sea but there is still a chance it could hit Australia or New Zealand.
The same is true for climate models. Ensemble runs show the range of possibilities. The interesting thing is that recent CMIP6 runs are showing a higher equilibrium climate sensitivity with the addition of more recent data.
One forum user has stated that they have changed their position from decided to undecided. Though that is an extremely small sample size, I think it does highlight the reality that you cannot necessarily move someone from one extreme to the other as easily as getting them to simply questioning their position to some degree. An AGW denier will not become a global warming enthusiast and vice versa.
SimonP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:51 amMatteo believes that all models are junk because a model run prediction may not occur. He does not understand the concept of an ensemble which gives an estimate of the probability that an event will occur. For example, we are currently watching Cyclone Uesi. Forecasters run the weather model many times with slight perturbations of the input conditions. At the moment, it looks as if it will run through the Tasman Sea but there is still a chance it could hit Australia or New Zealand.
The same is true for climate models. Ensemble runs show the range of possibilities. The interesting thing is that recent CMIP6 runs are showing a higher equilibrium climate sensitivity with the addition of more recent data.
Once again you are engaging in one of many logical fallacies and strawmanning me.SimonP wrote:Once again, you are confusing weather with climate.
Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what? Average of what?SimonP wrote: Weather is a single outcome, climate is what we get on average.
Somewhere I read that is not exactly correct but I get the point.SimonP wrote: But if you toss it a million times, I can tell you that you will get heads 50.0% of the time.
So what is the chance of a volcanic event? A coin toss?SimonP wrote: I can't tell you what the weather will be on 11 Feb 2050, but I can tell you that 2050 will almost certainly be warmer than 2020, unless there is a large Karakatoa/Pinatubo volcanic event
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 332 guests