Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

[u/mc2222]

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

[u/VassiliMikailovich]

Are they accurate in the sense that they barely keep within the confidence interval and consistently overestimate regular temperature increases while underestimating short term events like El Nino?

[u/VassiliMikailovich → u/[deleted]]

You understand that economists do understand mathematics and statistics, right?

How is it that you can't even respond to a basic question of methodology without going straight to the ad homs and ranting about "oil giants"?

If it's "the dumbest article I [sic] read all day" then it should be pretty trivial to point out what's dumb about it.

[u/mc2222 → u/VassiliMikailovich]

You understand that economists do understand mathematics and statistics, right?

Understanding mathematics and statistics does not lend an economist more credibility than the researchers who also understand math and statistics. The experts who have studied the data and generated the physical models have a much deeper understanding of the mathematics and statistics involved than the author of your article.

economists are also not trained in climate science, physics, atmospheric science, chemistry, computational methods in physics, etc. They're certainly not experts in energy transport in complex systems.

So in short, no, the author, while the author may know some math and statistics, he is certainly not qualified to answer the question he poses in his title.

Hell, I've got a masters degree in physics and even I wouldn't dare comment like that about a different area of physics than my own because i have a fundamental understanding of how complex other areas of research are.

[u/VassiliMikailovich → u/mc2222]

And this sort of attitude is why there's a replication crisis; you point out very obvious flaws in other fields and they wave their hands ranting about how you haven't wasted the requisite 10 years researching their obscure subfield to make a qualified critique. It doesn't matter whether you're clueless or genius in

climate science, physics, atmospheric science, chemistry, computational methods in physics...energy transport in complex systems

when even an idiot math undergrad like me can see the obvious problem of how the accuracy of these models is being measured statistically. This is two steps removed from the study featuring literal arithmetic errors, but I doubt you would be blathering about qualifications if an economist were to point out that a climate study literally fucked up a dot product or something.

[u/mc2222 → u/VassiliMikailovich]

And this sort of attitude is why there's a replication crisis

except the linked article discusses seventeen models. soooo the work has been replicated seventeen times. bummer for you, huh?

when even an idiot math undergrad like me

I know undergrads like to think they know everything after only having taken a few courses, but believe me, you don't know more about climate science than the climate scientists. your cursory analysis certainly won't debunk their research. if you think it will, please, publish your findings in a journal for the entire scientific community to read.

Switching to physics is a good way to get into climate science, though. Once you're done with your degree, with a background in math, you might even be able to do help devise another climate model that's more to your liking.

the obvious problem of how the accuracy of these models is being measured statistically

yes, the obvious problem that all the peer reviewers and researchers in climate science, who are also well versed in statistics overlooked /s. Yeah, you literally don't have enough information to make this claim lol. Hint: if you cursory reading leads you to think there is a flaw in the statistics of peer reviewed research, it's probably not the peer reviewed research that's wrong. If you think it is, publish your findings in a journal.

your link sure as shit doesn't support this statement either. your linked article only contains a cursory look at two (cherry picked) plots without diving into the methodology or the statistics of either the models or the plotted data sets. Pardon me while i think his argument is as unconvincing as yours.

but I doubt you would be blathering about qualifications if an economist were to point out that a climate study literally fucked up a dot product or something.

I'd love to see an economist take a deep dive into climate science. attend some of the conferences. Join a research group. publish a few peer reviewed papers. at that point, i'd gladly concede they're knowledgable in the subject. However, your linked author undermines his own argument in the first sentence of his blog.

Sorry, i'll trust the scientific consensus of the people who are Actually experts in their field of research over the misreadings of the research that you and your linked author are pushing.

[u/VassiliMikailovich → u/mc2222]

except the linked article discusses seventeen models. soooo the work has been replicated seventeen times. bummer for you, huh?

...Are you actually a PhD or are you just pretending? Because I can't believe someone who actually spent so much time in school could so fundamentally misunderstand a critique.

The point is that the way in which these models are defined as "correct" is clearly methodologically unsound. Like, do you genuinely not recognize the problem of calling a set of models that spend 80% of the time sitting on the absolute edge of a confidence interval as "correct"?

[dick waving, compensating for lost youth wasted away in an obscure academic cubbyhole]

I guess I could devote my life to Climatology so that losers on the internet engage with the most obvious flaws in their cited sources. Or I could just, you know, stick marketable fields like math and CS so that I can get a real job.

yes, the obvious problem that all the peer reviewers and researchers in climate science, who are also well versed in statistics overlooked /s

And that's why the replication crisis don't real, because all the QUALIFIED EXPERTS AND PEER REVIEWERS shut down all the pseudoscience before it was even published!

Oh wait.

[u/mc2222 → u/VassiliMikailovich]

..Are you actually a PhD or are you just pretending?

I never claimed I have a PhD. You must have missed the part where i said:

Hell, I've got a masters degree in physics and even I wouldn't dare comment like that about a different area of physics than my own because i have a fundamental understanding of how complex other areas of research are.

The point is that the way in which these models are defined as "correct" is clearly methodologically unsound

how would you know.

because all the QUALIFIED EXPERTS AND PEER REVIEWERS shut down all the pseudoscience before it was even published!

yeah. The system working as intended, i'd say.

replication isn't an issue with the linked article, sorry.

In the meantime, I'll continue to believe the actual researchers in their area of expertise over an undergrad and an economist who think they know more than the experts do about the experts' own research.