Have mathematical models replaced good old-fashioned scientific testing?
An understanding of the big picture in a field of study helps to frame and give essential perspective to that field. Take the field of natural science for instance. A big-picture look at the overall operation of the natural science profession has traditionally been seen in the “scientific method,” which consists of observation, hypothesis and testing. Rigorous testing of a hypothesis eventually leads to a “theory.”
This makes sense from an objective point of view. Although there is no particular set order to the arrangement of observation-hypothesis-testing, a good example of scientific practice would be the observation of a phenomenon in nature, hypothesizing the cause of the phenomenon, then testing (many times in many ways) the hypothesis. Sufficient confirmation of the hypothesis results in a theory that is tentative, subject to any future negation.
Of late, mathematical modeling, an essential investigative tool, appears to have taken over the world of natural science. And with the ascension of modeling, the focus in scientific endeavors — particularly in the practice of atmospheric science — may have shifted away from the rigor of testing to verify a hypothesis and toward constructing a model to represent a theory.
Here’s a climatic example of the traditional observation-hypothesis-testing arrangement. Based on an observation of increasing global average temperatures over a decade, a hypothesis may be proposed, such as: “Excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to long-term, catastrophic, global warming.” Given the extended nature of climate, which is officially based on 30-year means, a reasonable testing period can be set up to see if the hypothesis can be substantiated.
This example fairly matches recent history. With the milestone 30-year anniversary of the declaration by James Hansen of NASA at a June 1988 congressional hearing that “the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now,” there has been a minimal amount of time to begin to test the hypothesis of disastrous climate change. So far, comparing dramatically increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 with a substantially smaller than expected increase in global average temperatures and typically mixed extreme weather events across the globe, it can certainly be said that the jury is still out on what long-term catastrophic effects, if any, increasing CO2 has on the planet.
Yet, climate hysteria continues with increasing alarm. After all, the worst is yet to come, so say climate crusaders buttressed by their faith in climate models — the same models that performed dubiously when predicting the global-mean temperature trend during the past 30 years.
At least part of the problem of predicting reality can be attributed to the apparent abandonment of the observation-hypothesis-testing construct and replacing the hypothesis component with theory and the testing component with modeling.
And yet, models have a big role to play in our understanding of the atmosphere.
In the introduction to his acclaimed book, “A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming” (MIT Press, 2010), Professor Paul Edwards, a supporter of the “consensus” view of climate change, asserts that “Everything we know about the world’s climate — past, present, and future — we know through models.” He also notes that “without models, there are no data.”
Models have become integral to modern scientific practice. In many fields, Edwards says “computer models complement or even replace laboratory experiments; analysis and simulation models have become principal means of data collection, prediction, and decision making.”
Such is the contemporary world of science aided by the powerful tool of modern computers. The three basic components of the scientific method — observation, hypothesis, and testing — still hold, but in many cases the testing portion has been abetted, if not in some cases usurped, by models.
Still, when it comes to running models to foresee the Earth’s distant future climate, the eminent atmospheric scientist, Reid Bryson, probably gave the best observation: Making a forecast is easy. Being right is the hard part.
Originally published on The Washington Times. Used with permission.
James Rust says
Interesting article. No mention of a huge amount of experimental data going back one million years that shows changing atmospheric carbon dioxide has a small or zero effect on temperatures.
Ian says
If you are attempting to determine if atmospheric CO2 is causing
the earth’s temperature to rise then you have to account for all other
possible factors starting with the sources of heat, the sun and
the earth’s core, and understanding their effect on the temperature
of land, sea and atmosphere. Anything less is delusion and deception.
which is the agenda of the UNIPCC. They have tried the their best to
destroy the real science of climatology.
gunter Thompson says
Ian: here’s the mission of the UNIPCC: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.”
My guess is that they have not tried to “destroy the real science of climatology” as you claim.
Ian says
Gunter, I’ll let Cornwall Alliance respond to your first paragraph
if they choose.
My mistake, they haven’t tried to destroy real climate science
but rather replace it with their own brand. Since now every
environmental or weather anomaly is attributed to “climate change”,
through the human use of fossil fuel there is no need to look for
other causes. Real scientific investigation is pointless because
“the science is settled.”
gunter Thompson says
Ian: There is no such thing as a “brand” of science. A thing either is or is not. Or if there is a grey area, we should conclude from the best evaluation of evidence.
Bob Armstrong says
Even this misses the method of physics which has transformed the world since Kepler and Newton “discovered” inverse square laws which made sense directly in geometric terms .
Rather straightforward classical 19th century physics disproves the spectral GHG paradigm at a distinctly undergraduate level . Also at a 19th century level it is quantitatively clear that gravity , not some never testably quantified em spectral filtering effect , is why bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops . If one believes in conservation of energy , one cannot leave gravity out of the energy balance equations , yet the GHG paradigm does .
Ian says
Bob,
You are correct gravity is a major factor in the atmospheric temperature gradient.
Of course it is intentionally excluded along with many other factors.
Kevin Benn says
And when you realise you didn’t actually get dealt any trumps, you can always haul out the PP (precautionary principle) card…
Gunter Thompson says
Interesting that the author would rely on the “traditional observation-hypothesis-testing arrangement” to assess climate change yet abandons it when it comes to religious beliefs.
Dan Pangburn says
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe a theory or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.
Water vapor has been increasing twice as fast as expected from temperature increase.
Average global temperature has been increasing half as fast as predicted by Global Climate Models
gunter Thompson says
Dan Pangburn: what does this mean: “Water vapor has been increasing twice as fast as expected from temperature increase.” Evaporation rates are predictable based on temperature and ambient humidity. You make it sound like in the past water vapor was idling, but now, for some reason its increasing. Did I get that wrong?
Gunter Thompson says
Also, Dan Pangburn: This is interesting. You state “Regardless of how many experts believe a theory or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.”
How about applying that reasoning to questioning the existence of a god?
Ian says
Gunter,
Why would a person who knows the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
question God’s existence?
I know my wife. You would think it rather strange if I were to
question her existence, likewise if you are married.
Gunter Thompson says
Ian: Seems like a circular argument. And a false equivalence. You can prove that your wife exists, but you can’t prove god (or “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”) exist.
Ian says
Gunter:
Ps.19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where Their voice is not heard.
Rom.1:19 …..what can be known about God is evident to them [people], because God made it evident to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made. As a result, they have no excuse.
The earth is filled with the glory of God, we need to recognize it and
respond to Him.
gunter Thompson says
Ian: None of that is proof of a god’s existence. And I don’t really need 100% proof to act on a conclusion. But to explain the world, what is the most likely- a supernatural or natural force?
Ian says
Hi Gunter, I would like to continue this conversation directly
so I asked Cornwall Alliance to send you my email address.
I hope to hear from you soon.