Modeling.

Modeling. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> Modeling. (9/7/2013 6:59:50 AM)
No, this is not about being on the cat walk. AGW, global climate change, economics, hurricane season, and other predictive models used to explain the why, when, and how, are all flawed. Period. QED! This does not reduce their usefulness to zero nor should it be stated that any model should be relied upon as determinative to action because it's the best we have at the moment. Models are but flawed indicators. Best when viewed with a skeptics eye. "It certainly looks like pretty much of a forecast bust," said Jeff Masters, a hurricane expert and director of meteorology at the Weather Underground (www.wunderground.com). "Virtually all the (forecast) groups were calling for above-normal hurricanes and intensive hurricanes and we haven't even had a hurricane at all, with the season half over," he said. The El Nino weather phenomenon - a warming of the tropical Pacific - which is part of the mix of unstable ingredients that can affect hurricane formation, is also not a factor this year, making the lack of storm activity harder to explain. "It's certainly a head scratcher," said Masters, who said he thought wind shear had been near normal this year and warmer than average sea temperatures in the Atlantic favored storms. He noted that dry air, from Africa as well as rarely mentioned flows associated with an extreme drought in northeast Brazil, may be a factor "helping to shut down this year's hurricane season." This also brings me to Paul Krugman's latest NY Times piece where he repeats his mantra that enough wasn't done. I'll leave it to you to go read it. Would his recommended amount of stimulus be correct? Is he looking via hindsight according to his macroeconomic textbook crystal ball? If not, does this piece jive with what he recommended years ago? Has his predictive model been impliedly updated to reflect changes not seen years ago? I think yes. It's listening to noise. So when one reads the threads about global climate change and the imperative to do something, remember that they too rely on flawed modeling. As an aside, this is one reason I'm an Austrian when it comes to economics. People, like mother nature, are fickle and do things not expected. Markets are like people and mother nature, moving in ways not modelable but in the shortest of terms. So be careful when someone says you should hang your hat on some model.

mnottertail -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 7:11:44 AM)
But that is my point and has always been, Austrians, Kenyesians, any of them use simplistic linear models for economic theory, when we know for a fact that it is definitely a chaos theory model, all economic models are atrocious and have no bearing whatsoever on the real world. Thats why they all are dismal scientists and full of shit as a christmas goose.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 8:22:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie This also brings me to Paul Krugman's latest NY Times piece where he repeats his mantra that enough wasn't done. I'll leave it to you to go read it. Would his recommended amount of stimulus be correct? Is he looking via hindsight according to his macroeconomic textbook crystal ball? If not, does this piece jive with what he recommended years ago? Has his predictive model been impliedly updated to reflect changes not seen years ago? I think yes. It's listening to noise. So when one reads the threads about global climate change and the imperative to do something, remember that they too rely on flawed modeling. As an aside, this is one reason I'm an Austrian when it comes to economics. People, like mother nature, are fickle and do things not expected. Markets are like people and mother nature, moving in ways not modelable but in the shortest of terms. So be careful when someone says you should hang your hat on some model. If I remember correctly, Kruggles was concerned that Obama's stimulus wasn't going to be large enough initially, and then was calling for a much larger stimification within 12 months of the bill passing. So, yes, I do believe it jives with what he recommended years ago.

Yachtie -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 8:29:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But that is my point and has always been, Austrians, Kenyesians, any of them use simplistic linear models for economic theory, when we know for a fact that it is definitely a chaos theory model, all economic models are atrocious and have no bearing whatsoever on the real world. Thats why they all are dismal scientists and full of shit as a christmas goose. Exactly. So why all the bandwagon on AGW (CC) modeling? This is not to say such should be dismissed, but it seems there isn't the skeptics eye where climate modeling is concerned. I mean I do hear that such is settled science. This isn't about economics, but flawed modeling on which one's hat should be so carefully hung.

mnottertail -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 9:05:34 AM)
Hold the fucking phone, there are far more complex models for AGW than for economics. While both are flawed, you are comparing and equating simple pre-school add subtract multiply divide (economics) to college calculus (climate). Not the same universe. One is never right, except in hindsight, and one is often right.

DomKen -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 9:22:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But that is my point and has always been, Austrians, Kenyesians, any of them use simplistic linear models for economic theory, when we know for a fact that it is definitely a chaos theory model, all economic models are atrocious and have no bearing whatsoever on the real world. Thats why they all are dismal scientists and full of shit as a christmas goose. Exactly. So why all the bandwagon on AGW (CC) modeling? This is not to say such should be dismissed, but it seems there isn't the skeptics eye where climate modeling is concerned. I mean I do hear that such is settled science. This isn't about economics, but flawed modeling on which one's hat should be so carefully hung. Climate modeling has been remarkably effective for such a large and chaotic system. The biggest problem at present is that the worst case models are consistently the most accurate. That does imply we're underestimating the strength of the forces driving climate change not that there isn't any change or that it is a normal cycle. Your above link even explains why the models for hurricanes predicted above normal activity this year, warmer water and normal wind shear. Next year the models will improve by taking into account the variables left out this year. For systems subject to chaos theory that is really the only way to improve the models after a certain point. You make a prediction, or range of predictions, and then see how close you were and figure out why your model was off and add in the new variable.

Yachtie -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 9:33:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Hold the fucking phone, there are far more complex models for AGW than for economics. While both are flawed, you are comparing and equating simple pre-school add subtract multiply divide (economics) to college calculus (climate). Not the same universe. One is never right, except in hindsight, and one is often right. I agree, economics as opposed to AGW (CC) modeling are not in the same universe, but both rely on modeling. What I intuit from your response is that, due to greater complexity, AGW (CC) modeling should be relied upon. Does having greater complexity indicate some form of reliability one should hang one's hat on, even as you admit, such complexity is flawed? One may often be right in hindsight. Is that predictive of being right in foresight, especially where such predictive modeling is subject to being chaotic? The further out ones predictive chaotic model extends, the greater the divergence from the model one experiences. edit: I did not see what DK posted

Yachtie -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 9:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Your above link even explains why the models for hurricanes predicted above normal activity this year, warmer water and normal wind shear. Next year the models will improve by taking into account the variables left out this year. For systems subject to chaos theory that is really the only way to improve the models after a certain point. You make a prediction, or range of predictions, and then see how close you were and figure out why your model was off and add in the new variable. The link emphatically stated - The El Nino weather phenomenon - a warming of the tropical Pacific - which is part of the mix of unstable ingredients that can affect hurricane formation, is also not a factor this year, making the lack of storm activity harder to explain. It wasn't a variable left out, it was not a factor which is why it's harder to explain.

mnottertail -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 9:44:28 AM)
I would not make the bare statement that it should be relied upon in whole cloth fashion. It is more likely reliable, and as Ken points out, constantly improving. (as are the theories, and the computers, and the models, and the variables). Not so with Economics. There is a forecast of 70% chance of rain here Monday (we are in a significant long term drought in this area) I will believe it when I see it. I am not dusting off my umbrella however. But I bet there will be very dark clouds sometime that day.

DomKen -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 10:26:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Your above link even explains why the models for hurricanes predicted above normal activity this year, warmer water and normal wind shear. Next year the models will improve by taking into account the variables left out this year. For systems subject to chaos theory that is really the only way to improve the models after a certain point. You make a prediction, or range of predictions, and then see how close you were and figure out why your model was off and add in the new variable. The link emphatically stated - The El Nino weather phenomenon - a warming of the tropical Pacific - which is part of the mix of unstable ingredients that can affect hurricane formation, is also not a factor this year, making the lack of storm activity harder to explain. It wasn't a variable left out, it was not a factor which is why it's harder to explain. wrong quote "It's certainly a head scratcher," said Masters, who said he thought wind shear had been near normal this year and warmer than average sea temperatures in the Atlantic favored storms. " and the variables not taken into account "He noted that dry air, from Africa as well as rarely mentioned flows associated with an extreme drought in northeast Brazil, may be a factor "helping to shut down this year's hurricane season."

PeonForHer -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 10:37:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Exactly. So why all the bandwagon on AGW (CC) modeling? This is not to say such should be dismissed, but it seems there isn't the skeptics eye where climate modeling is concerned. I mean I do hear that such is settled science. This isn't about economics, but flawed modeling on which one's hat should be so carefully hung. Two things spring to mind: One is that any forecasts that depend on modelling that predicts 'no change in climate' should also be treated with scepticism; the second is - in the absence of fully-convincing models and predictions - why assume the best thing is to do nothing?

leonine -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 4:59:13 PM)
The argument is based on a misunderstanding of what the climate models are for. They are not to test and prove/disprove AGW. That is a very simple theory tested by very simple measurements, and the fit between the theory and observations became solid enough many years ago to convince most experts who weren't being paid to be unconvinced. The models are to try to work out what the simple theory means in terms of real weather, and that is a whole lot harder. To take one example at random: we know that the Gulf Stream is driven by the temperature gradient between the equator and the pole. It is likely that as the pole warms up, at some point that mechanism will break down. Since this would have apocalyptic consequences for Northern Europe, we'd like to know how likely it is, and when: but nobody knows for sure what factors are important (Salinity? Ice cover? Number of polar bears?) or how they relate. It's the difference between a doctor saying with confidence "You are seriously ill and will die without treatment," and asking him to predict what your fever level will be minute by minute.

JeffBC -> RE: Modeling. (9/7/2013 5:27:50 PM)
~fast reply~ I think it's also worth noting that "the climate" does not hide. It does not cheat. It does not deceive. It doesn't steal. It just is. It is inherently more understandable than "the economy" because nobody dares actually talk about the real economy.

brokendom111 -> RE: Modeling. (9/8/2013 12:50:59 PM)
Yup, build a conclusion around a belief.

leonine -> RE: Modeling. (9/8/2013 3:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brokendom111 Yup, build a conclusion around a belief. As I've tried to explain, that's the difference between science and politics. In science, the belief is built around the facts, and often involves people changing their views completely because of new evidence. Politicians don't do this: faced with new evidence that contradicts their beliefs, they either suppress the evidence, or if they don't have the power to do that, start a media campaign to deny it. I encountered the difference between these two viewpoints back in University. The Socialist Society gave a talk on Lysenkoism, and a lot of my Biology class were intrigued enough to attend. It opened with a presentation about how Darwinian evolutionary theory was a capitalist plot, then they asked for questions, and the Biolsci students started asking what evidence there was that Lysenko's theories were more correct than Darwin's? The Socialists were just plain baffled. They'd explained why Lysenkoism was more politically sound than Darwinism, wasn't that good enough? Why should we want evidence? It was a collision of two incompatible world views.

Yachtie -> RE: Modeling. (9/8/2013 3:32:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: brokendom111 Yup, build a conclusion around a belief. In science, the belief is built around the facts, and often involves people changing their views completely because of new evidence. Views that change due to evidence in support of the facts or evidence that changes the facts? I find your usage, "In science, the belief is", to be quite religious.

dcnovice -> RE: Modeling. (9/8/2013 3:37:32 PM)
quote: I find your usage, "In science, the belief is", to be quite religious. I find your usage, plucking a phrase out of a context in which it made perfect sense, a lame attempt to shoehorn it into the latest right-wing talking point.

DomKen -> RE: Modeling. (9/8/2013 3:53:03 PM)
FR I've spent most of my life opposing creationists trying to insert their religion into public school classrooms. Two things about their arguments have always struck me. First is their obsession with Charles Darwin. He was one of the first to put the concept to paper but the theory of evolution has developed quite a lot since him and discrediting some idea he had or attacking some personal failing does not change the fact the evolution occurs. Second is their belief that any anomaly that cannot be immediately fully explained disproves the entire theory. Now look at the deniers of climate change and you see the same thing. They obsess over the Al Gore, and to a lesser extent Michael Mann. They treat every minor variance from what someone predicted as proof positive that all of climatology, and by extension all of physics, is wrong. In both cases I think you see a movement based around the profit motive, the creationist leaders and the big old energy industry companies know what they're peddling is nonsense but it does keep the money rolling in, and enabled by a deeply troubling anti science and anti knowledge attitude by certain segments of the American populace.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Modeling. (9/8/2013 4:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR I've spent most of my life opposing creationists trying to insert their religion into public school classrooms. Two things about their arguments have always struck me. First is their obsession with Charles Darwin. He was one of the first to put the concept to paper but the theory of evolution has developed quite a lot since him and discrediting some idea he had or attacking some personal failing does not change the fact the evolution occurs. Second is their belief that any anomaly that cannot be immediately fully explained disproves the entire theory. Now look at the deniers of climate change and you see the same thing. They obsess over the Al Gore, and to a lesser extent Michael Mann. They treat every minor variance from what someone predicted as proof positive that all of climatology, and by extension all of physics, is wrong. In both cases I think you see a movement based around the profit motive, the creationist leaders and the big old energy industry companies know what they're peddling is nonsense but it does keep the money rolling in, and enabled by a deeply troubling anti science and anti knowledge attitude by certain segments of the American populace. What's interesting, though, is that anyone who is denying the Theory of Evolution isn't necessary denying that we evolve, but in the theory that is being put forth. I can express my disbelief that we evolved from apes without denying that we evolve. Denying AGW isn't denying that the climate is changing, but that it's humans that are driving the change.

JeffBC -> RE: Modeling. (9/8/2013 6:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Denying AGW isn't denying that the climate is changing, but that it's humans that are driving the change. Which is all neat from a faith based perspective. This is what leonine keeps trying to say. If you're looking at this from scientific standpoint, you don't "deny" stuff. What you do is propose an alternative theory that fits the facts... ALL the facts... better than the existing theory. Insofar as the ape thing, I could be wrong but I don't think any scientist believes we "evolved from apes" unless you're talking SO far back in the evolutionary tree that you could say that about anything. Keep in mind that pretty much all life as we know it is just a tiny little branch on a huge tree. Humans and grass and apes are all much more alike genetically than some of the freaky stuff on those other branches.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625