Monday, October 08, 2007
On Climate Change (Part 1)
Models
The scientist who claims to be able to predict the temperature of the Earth [whatever that means] 50 years from now accurate to +/- .5 degrees, is either a liar, or the smartest person in the world. I believe this because, as a person with an advanced degree in theoretical computer science [with plenty of scientific computation], I know that any model I built would be so bad it would be dangerous. And if I can't do it, who are the people that think they can? Oh, atmospheric scientists? pshaww.
But for all you know, I'm a moron, so to help everyone out I put together this little "proof." Thanks for your time.
Premise 1: Modeling the climate, with a gazillion molecules floating around and interacting randomly, and myriad of [possibly poorly understood] interacting weather systems, would require extremely complicated computations, which would be sensitive to data availability, measurement issues, and the initial conditions of the computation.
Premise 2: The model described above would be on the order of magnitude or more complicated than a model to predict the stock market to the same degree of accuracy.
Premise 3: The model that would predict the stock market would be far more lucrative and possibly less [but not more] difficult.
Premise 4: A scientist with the necessary skill set to create one or both of those models, being a rational economic agent, would choose to first create the stock market prediction model.
Premise 5: A model that predicts that stock market does not exist.
Conclusion: Climate models are complete horseshit.
Additional Considerations
I'm sure this has been pointed out elsewhere, but I think it's important to discuss the motives of some of the people espousing a belief in global warming.
Atmospheric Scientists - If global warming turns out to be non-existent, or not anthropogenic, or on balance not really that damaging, or easily mitigated -- these people need to find a new line of work. That, my friends, can cause a strong [subconscious?] bias in favor of finding it to be a problem.
Environmentalists - Many think that humans are a blight on Earth and human progress is a bad thing. Severe restrictions on energy consumption would disrupt this progress to their delight.
Unions [American] - Boosting environmental restrictions around the world would make America, with it's higher productivity and technological savvy, more competitive vis-a-vis the developing world.
Large Corporations [American] - Same rationale as unions. Additionally, the scale and resources of large corporations would make them better able to afford costly remediation plans and hamper their small competition.
Government Officials - More laws, more bureaucrats needed to enforce the laws, more money. Need I say more?
Europeans - America emits a large share of CO2 [notwithstanding the C02 emitted by all the afternoon siestas in Europe]. The motive here is Schadenfreude.
Bill Maher - Think about what would happen to him if he said he didn't believe in climate change. Liberal HBO executives [his bosses] would not be very happy. Also, it would be harder for him to pull down hot actress ass in L.A. I would say pretty much anything to get hot actress ass. A strong motive indeed.
Recap
Notice I did not say that global warming is not happening, either naturally or due to human activities. All I said was that climate models are bunk and that we should examine the motives of people who believe [I'll let other sites examine to motives of those who don't believe].
Thank you for listening to my insane rantings.
UPDATE (10/16): This was in today's WSJ
"The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality."
Models
The scientist who claims to be able to predict the temperature of the Earth [whatever that means] 50 years from now accurate to +/- .5 degrees, is either a liar, or the smartest person in the world. I believe this because, as a person with an advanced degree in theoretical computer science [with plenty of scientific computation], I know that any model I built would be so bad it would be dangerous. And if I can't do it, who are the people that think they can? Oh, atmospheric scientists? pshaww.
But for all you know, I'm a moron, so to help everyone out I put together this little "proof." Thanks for your time.
Premise 1: Modeling the climate, with a gazillion molecules floating around and interacting randomly, and myriad of [possibly poorly understood] interacting weather systems, would require extremely complicated computations, which would be sensitive to data availability, measurement issues, and the initial conditions of the computation.
Premise 2: The model described above would be on the order of magnitude or more complicated than a model to predict the stock market to the same degree of accuracy.
Premise 3: The model that would predict the stock market would be far more lucrative and possibly less [but not more] difficult.
Premise 4: A scientist with the necessary skill set to create one or both of those models, being a rational economic agent, would choose to first create the stock market prediction model.
Premise 5: A model that predicts that stock market does not exist.
Conclusion: Climate models are complete horseshit.
Additional Considerations
I'm sure this has been pointed out elsewhere, but I think it's important to discuss the motives of some of the people espousing a belief in global warming.
Atmospheric Scientists - If global warming turns out to be non-existent, or not anthropogenic, or on balance not really that damaging, or easily mitigated -- these people need to find a new line of work. That, my friends, can cause a strong [subconscious?] bias in favor of finding it to be a problem.
Environmentalists - Many think that humans are a blight on Earth and human progress is a bad thing. Severe restrictions on energy consumption would disrupt this progress to their delight.
Unions [American] - Boosting environmental restrictions around the world would make America, with it's higher productivity and technological savvy, more competitive vis-a-vis the developing world.
Large Corporations [American] - Same rationale as unions. Additionally, the scale and resources of large corporations would make them better able to afford costly remediation plans and hamper their small competition.
Government Officials - More laws, more bureaucrats needed to enforce the laws, more money. Need I say more?
Europeans - America emits a large share of CO2 [notwithstanding the C02 emitted by all the afternoon siestas in Europe]. The motive here is Schadenfreude.
Bill Maher - Think about what would happen to him if he said he didn't believe in climate change. Liberal HBO executives [his bosses] would not be very happy. Also, it would be harder for him to pull down hot actress ass in L.A. I would say pretty much anything to get hot actress ass. A strong motive indeed.
Recap
Notice I did not say that global warming is not happening, either naturally or due to human activities. All I said was that climate models are bunk and that we should examine the motives of people who believe [I'll let other sites examine to motives of those who don't believe].
Thank you for listening to my insane rantings.
UPDATE (10/16): This was in today's WSJ
"The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality."
