ONE way to help shift an accepted scientific paradigm (e.g. Anthropogenic Global Warming) is by coming up with a more practical and relevant way of describing and predicting real physical processes in the natural world (e.g. a better seasonal rainfall forecast).
Eli Rabett June 17th, 2012 at 8:27 am wrote:
"As a friendly climate scientist told Eli when the Bunny asked about neural nets, they tell you what will happen, not why, and if anything changes, neural nets are not very useful. GCMs tend to be a lot better on the why."
Here's the Larry Aphorism of the day:
GCMs are incontrovertible proof of the existence of computer programmers.
Dodgy assumptions are fed into the GCMs. Then the GCMs make predictions, which thus far have turned out to be total garbage. Then Warmies take the existence of the GCMs as evidence for their little secular religions. Somehow that is supposed to make GCMs "a lot better on the why."
Eli, can you say, "confirmation bias?" Or "circular reasoning?"
Scientific Literacy 101: In the full-fledged theoretical sciences, prediction is the coin of the realm.
Oops, that's two Larry Aphorisms in one day. Bad Larry! *slaps own wrist*
As a friendly climate scientist told Eli when the Bunny asked about neural nets, they tell you what will happen, not why, and if anything changes, neural nets are not very useful. GCMs tend to be a lot better on the why.
Jen, forgot to add there are a couple of errors I spotted from the shallow end - data common to tables 3, 4 and 5 don’t agree where they should.
It looks that way to me too,
'unable to acknowledge'.
Why is that?
The comments from Bazza were tainted with comments that questioned the validity of the methodology and also the qualifications of Jen and Abbot.
Professional jealousy perhaps? Or maybe Jen has nailed it: believe too hard in nonsense?
Aren't you able to give credit to other published studies Bazza?
Or perhaps recognise that maybe others have the ability to make positive contributions?
Just because people like me like the approach this work has taken, doesn't automatically mean that we think the other research is instantly negated.
If it is useful and can be added to what we already know, then it will have support from 'end users' like me.
And Luke,
that was the answer to 'how would you use it'.. . . which I answered the first time you asked.
I imagine it will be an added use, not unlike we use numerous sites together already, which are all packaged differently.
Bazza
Of course the training was independent of the forecast.
If there was anything so basic wrong with our methodology we would never have got the paper published by Advances in Atmospheric Science.
There is nothing wrong with our methodology. You are just way out of your depth and unable to acknowledge an important contribution because you believe too hard in nonsense.
This DD was intended for AR5 but hopefully it's been sufficiently torpedoed.
Ya wouldn't wanna bet though:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/6/7/another-hockey-stick-broken.html