http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/5147/641

This book sounds more like it laments engineers believing their models and selling them to the client; and the authors themselves seem to share this view by their ‘adaptive management’ point. It’s certainly what I learned in grad school and what me and my peers do today.

Let me give you an analogy to the climate modeling debate. In the 1980s / 1990s there was a huge movement in US manufacturing to move from forecast-based production planning, using a modeling approach called MRP / DRP to what was viewed as a more “Japanese” approach of Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing in which no attempt to forecast was made and the factory simply responded to orders as they arrived. At least this was the most theological version of the approach. Each side had partisans, and both dug into their positions.

Eventually common-sense prevailed, and the hubristic arrogance of the MRP / DRP models in the face of massive uncertainty was demonstrated through careful analysis by (reasonably) objective analysts, and the usefulness of at least simple predictive models was also demonstrated for specific contexts. Hybrid models, often with unique modifications for different applications, were developed for most plants.

What always turns out to be the required discipline to resolve these disputes is empirical tracking of predictive accuracy as directly linked to economics.

That is what it seems to me is missing from the discussion of climate models. Given that the feedback effects (i.e., the contribution of the GCM models) is something like 60 – 70% of the total IPCC ‘consensus’ CO2 sensitivity estimate, that means its pretty central to the AGW debate. I think that the climate modeling community in this analogy is basically the MRP / DRP crowd and the Pilkeys are analogs of the early JIT proponents. The Pilkeys clearly have the high ground in the debate right now because predictive modelers not subject to rigorous external audit always overestimate their own predictive capabilities. There surely are tons of systematic errors to be discovered. That said, the Pilkeys’ “all models suck and are evidence of mental defect” hyperbole will eventually be seen as over-correction.

This is precisely why some of us have much more faith in the ability of a free market (under the rule of law) to lead to productive and peaceful solutions to problems than government legislation and regulation prompted by computer models. A free market is constantly watching and adapting in a way that no limited group or individual ever could, no matter how ‘enlightened’ they believe themselves to be.

The success of any society is found largely in the freedom of its people to make their own decisions and suffer their own consequences.

See:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/02/07/world_poverty

Certainly there is a role for government, (as outlined in the preamble to the US Constitution), but it should not be viewed as the ultimate source of solutions. When we place that burden on our elected officials, we force them to turn to things like computer models and ‘experts’ for guidance, ultimately leading to very poor decisions, improper regulations and a gradual decline of the society.

I am ordering this book today, but it sounds like it will only reinforce my world view and support the conclusions I have already reached.

When

What an idea?! You mean it’s not fine to just say: order all 50 references and figure out which equations in each of those references are used in our code?

I have to admit, with GCM models, all the models and assumptoins don’t always all fit within page limits of peer reviewed articles. So, I’d be satisfied if articles in peer reviewed journals discussing GCM’s simply cited a ph.d. thesis or government laboratory reference — neither or which have page limits– that described the assumptions and model simplifications used during the computations of the results presented.

This is done in other areas.