http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/ Ambit Gambit Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:01:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2694 A NON FARMER Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:55:01 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2694 Oh dear SP, Modelling. Why get so sophisticated? If a model is a model of a model - then it might be best if he/she/it still functions well. Yes. I risk being sexist for good reason. Consider. I'm a bloke but have discussed the scenario with Lady friends and found a common sentiment. We were all once young and gormless and wanted to be 'seen out' with someone who would 'Wow' our peers. Sometimes that ideal person, 'that Model', which seemed a good idea back then might cause us nausea in our maturity. But let's face it - there are those of us who are straitened by circumstance and finance who simply cannot afford the real thing. Here I come to the nub of the issue - They may choose to 'model' in small scale those things they hold precious. Superbly crafted models of all sorts of things. Works of art that reflect the love of their creators. Then there are those who just decide that they've 'been there and done that' and make a decision that technology provides an outlet for them to expand their knowledge or past career in a manageable way. In this regard it is amazing the number of airline pilots, fighter jocks, naval captains, auto and motorcycle racers, astronauts - you name it - who enjoy spending big money by replicating what they used to do before retirement - but in miniature. Now these 'modellers' do not become involved with these activities to make money or prove anything. They become engaged because they want to and make a personal decision to follow their nose without any regard for the rest of society (except maybe for the kids next door). Models. If such a model, say of a Boeing 17 is of about 24 foot wingspan, has four engines, is radio controlled from the ground with quarruple redundancy telemetry and takes three people attending the controls to fly the beast - is that a model or a slightly smaller replication of the original? Models. If hobbyists go that far - just for the hell of it; then where does that leave uni graduates with no trade skills or life experience. I suggest absolutely nowhere. I'd suggest they get out there and at least experiment with a few chuck-gliders, some Tamiya kits, or some embroidery before they opened their mouths. Oh dear SP, Modelling.
Why get so sophisticated?
If a model is a model of a model – then it might be best if he/she/it still functions well.
Yes. I risk being sexist for good reason.
Consider. I’m a bloke but have discussed the scenario with Lady friends and found a common sentiment.
We were all once young and gormless and wanted to be ‘seen out’ with someone who would ‘Wow’ our peers.
Sometimes that ideal person, ‘that Model’, which seemed a good idea back then might cause us nausea in our maturity.
But let’s face it – there are those of us who are straitened by circumstance and finance who simply cannot afford the real thing.
Here I come to the nub of the issue -
They may choose to ‘model’ in small scale those things they hold precious. Superbly crafted models of all sorts of things. Works of art that reflect the love of their creators.
Then there are those who just decide that they’ve ‘been there and done that’ and make a decision that technology provides an outlet for them to expand their knowledge or past career in a manageable way.
In this regard it is amazing the number of airline pilots, fighter jocks, naval captains, auto and motorcycle racers, astronauts – you name it – who enjoy spending big money by replicating what they used to do before retirement – but in miniature.
Now these ‘modellers’ do not become involved with these activities to make money or prove anything.
They become engaged because they want to and make a personal decision to follow their nose without any regard for the rest of society (except maybe for the kids next door).
Models.
If such a model, say of a Boeing 17 is of about 24 foot wingspan, has four engines, is radio controlled from the ground with quarruple redundancy telemetry and takes three people attending the controls to fly the beast – is that a model or a slightly smaller replication of the original?
Models.
If hobbyists go that far – just for the hell of it; then where does that leave uni graduates with no trade skills or life experience.
I suggest absolutely nowhere.
I’d suggest they get out there and at least experiment with a few chuck-gliders, some Tamiya kits, or some embroidery before they opened their mouths.

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2695 Graham Young Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:32:58 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2695 SP, you make some valid points, but I was never making a straight comparison between financial and climate models. However I think you miss the point of these climate models. They don't just embody known physical relationships, but make huge assumptions as to how other little understood factors might interact with the known factors. In making these assumptions subjectivity, which is what you assert applies to financial models, but not ones of physical occurrences, intrudes. The models can't accurately model aerosols, cloud formation or energy transfers from the oceans. The figures that are put into them to represent these things are therefore quite subjective. This isn't the same thing as modelling the universe, which can be done using a pen and paper. I think there is also an issue as to whether climate is an equilibrium system, as the solar system is. If it is not an equilibrium system, then it is closer to the economy than it is to the solar system. SP, you make some valid points, but I was never making a straight comparison between financial and climate models. However I think you miss the point of these climate models. They don’t just embody known physical relationships, but make huge assumptions as to how other little understood factors might interact with the known factors.
In making these assumptions subjectivity, which is what you assert applies to financial models, but not ones of physical occurrences, intrudes.
The models can’t accurately model aerosols, cloud formation or energy transfers from the oceans. The figures that are put into them to represent these things are therefore quite subjective.
This isn’t the same thing as modelling the universe, which can be done using a pen and paper.
I think there is also an issue as to whether climate is an equilibrium system, as the solar system is. If it is not an equilibrium system, then it is closer to the economy than it is to the solar system.

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2696 SP Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:57:19 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2696 I think it is disingenuous to compare models of physical reality with models of financial markets. If I were to model a purely physical system, the out come and units of measure do not depend on my "feeling" towards them. However, I can walk into two identical houses and come out with two very different views of the "value" of each house if one "felt funny" and the other "felt nice" or some such similarily difficult to quantify property... Until economics has a proper theory or model of human behaviour, instead of its assumptions then these models are likely to be very flawed. No matter how I feel about a meter/ speed of light/ permittivity of free space/ Enthalpy of combustion of petrol, these values do not change... the same is true of other fundamental units of measure in the physical world. This is not true of abstractions of "value" like currencies which fluctuate depending on how market players "feel" about them... and these "feelings" then influence other market players. This might explain why we make mathematical models of gravity (al la Newtons laws) much more easily than mathematical models of stock market behaviour. The problem is not modelling per se. It is some operators idealistic or unreasonable expectations of what a model is, what it can teach us, and how we can use that information. A model is not reality. If you wanted that then why are you modelling? A lot of people seem to forget that a model is only a representation of reality. The situation gets even worse when models become iterative. Models have limits... but I would argue that the predictive ability of a climate model will be greater than attempts to predict the stock market... for the simple reason that gas molecules do not change there behaviour if I shout at them but my banker might! I think it is disingenuous to compare models of physical reality with models of financial markets.
If I were to model a purely physical system, the out come and units of measure do not depend on my “feeling” towards them.
However, I can walk into two identical houses and come out with two very different views of the “value” of each house if one “felt funny” and the other “felt nice” or some such similarily difficult to quantify property…
Until economics has a proper theory or model of human behaviour, instead of its assumptions then these models are likely to be very flawed.
No matter how I feel about a meter/ speed of light/ permittivity of free space/ Enthalpy of combustion of petrol, these values do not change… the same is true of other fundamental units of measure in the physical world.
This is not true of abstractions of “value” like currencies which fluctuate depending on how market players “feel” about them… and these “feelings” then influence other market players.
This might explain why we make mathematical models of gravity (al la Newtons laws) much more easily than mathematical models of stock market behaviour.
The problem is not modelling per se. It is some operators idealistic or unreasonable expectations of what a model is, what it can teach us, and how we can use that information.
A model is not reality. If you wanted that then why are you modelling? A lot of people seem to forget that a model is only a representation of reality.
The situation gets even worse when models become iterative.
Models have limits… but I would argue that the predictive ability of a climate model will be greater than attempts to predict the stock market… for the simple reason that gas molecules do not change there behaviour if I shout at them but my banker might!

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2697 A NON FARMER Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:30:47 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2697 Hello again people and forgive me Ronda - models are not plans or predictions or artificially generated scenarios. Models are devices that stand in realtime/realspace with the more sophisticated models configured to operate some way. The more sophisticated the model and the closer to full-scale the more closely MAY it emulate the original. I don't want to get away from the thread too much but a few key words like modelling and the Emperor's clothes happen to tickle me for all sorts of reasons. I don't know how many of you are into serendipity - but I happened to read the following this afternoon - <a href="http://www.thechronicle.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3785984" rel="nofollow">http://www.thechronicle.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3785984</a> UAV challenge Toowoomba Yes its that good Aussie underdog story where a 'model', but for a broken wire, could have cleaned up all opposition in a very public place against very serious equipment being fielded in fair competition by the world's experts. I submit, the 'experts ain't expert at all and they usually cost too much while they thrash about in committee reinventing the same old mousetrap. In the meantime while they (the oligarchy) stand firmly in the path of progress by sucking up all the funding they are consequently denying ordinary people their natural skills. Is it fair of me to mention modelling, the Emperor's new clothes and oligarchy in the same tome? Any comments? Hello again people and forgive me Ronda – models are not plans or predictions or artificially generated scenarios.
Models are devices that stand in realtime/realspace with the more sophisticated models configured to operate some way.
The more sophisticated the model and the closer to full-scale the more closely MAY it emulate the original.
I don’t want to get away from the thread too much but a few key words like modelling and the Emperor’s clothes happen to tickle me for all sorts of reasons.
I don’t know how many of you are into serendipity – but I happened to read the following this afternoon -
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3785984 UAV challenge Toowoomba
Yes its that good Aussie underdog story where a ‘model’, but for a broken wire, could have cleaned up all opposition in a very public place against very serious equipment being fielded in fair competition by the world’s experts.
I submit, the ‘experts ain’t expert at all and they usually cost too much while they thrash about in committee reinventing the same old mousetrap.
In the meantime while they (the oligarchy) stand firmly in the path of progress by sucking up all the funding they are consequently denying ordinary people their natural skills.
Is it fair of me to mention modelling, the Emperor’s new clothes and oligarchy in the same tome?
Any comments?

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2698 Ronda Jambe Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:06:19 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2698 The purpose of modelling is to match the results with empirical results. Last I heard, the models were getting ever better at showing what has happenend, and predicting the future. But, as I think I've pointed out before, climate change is just one element in a global impending environmental collapse. Consider the disappearance of many species of reptiles and birds, just for starters. But there surely is a link between the errors of relying on modelling for climate change and money markets: a failure to acknowledge that values and evidence are the most important factors. Greed drove the big and many of the little players in the financial drama; any reality check would have forced them to acknowledge they were living in lala land. Likewise, anyone who refuses to acknowledge that we are all living much too high on the environmental hog risks the hubris when reality hits. The purpose of modelling is to match the results with empirical results. Last I heard, the models were getting ever better at showing what has happenend, and predicting the future.
But, as I think I’ve pointed out before, climate change is just one element in a global impending environmental collapse. Consider the disappearance of many species of reptiles and birds, just for starters.
But there surely is a link between the errors of relying on modelling for climate change and money markets: a failure to acknowledge that values and evidence are the most important factors. Greed drove the big and many of the little players in the financial drama; any reality check would have forced them to acknowledge they were living in lala land. Likewise, anyone who refuses to acknowledge that we are all living much too high on the environmental hog risks the hubris when reality hits.

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2699 A NON FARMER Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:22:03 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2699 Hello Modellers, I firstly wanted to mention a concept I found in science fiction. Time travelling and guarding against committing a 'minimum neccessary change'. That is mistakenly interfering enough with history so that the whole path of history would be irrevocably changed - So would smothering Hitler at birth change history - or would all you needed to do was hold him up for fifteen seconds at a street corner so that he never met Hermann Goering?? A slick concept and worthy of cogitation. However all you guys have been talking about modelling - or believe you have. Actually you've been talking about planning and mapping abstractions. Don't get me wrong. Nothing wrong with that. But a model is something created in three dimensions that exists and operates in the fourth dimension of time. Depending on how well the model is designed it may emulate the thing that it is modelled upon reasonably well or be a complete flop and either refuse to begin working, work partly successfully but not sustainably - or operate well but in some fashion differently from that object it was intended to emulate. Hey. Just ask several generations of schoolboys who started out making things fly with rubberband power even before the Wright Brothers got into the air. Many of these schoolboys are old farts now and still playing with their models. Models that have become so complex and sophisticated that they require special certification and specially alloted airspace in order to fly. Why do I mention this? Simply to humbly suggest that to 'model' Great Gaia in all her beauty and enthralling complexity we risk stuffing up immensely if we try to modify her systems when we only have a few scrappy blueprints - when we completely lack the skill or means to make a true 'model' - when even if we tried the model would be, like those toys of a century ago, completely unguided and propelled by something that at best would have a ten second burst of power followed, at best, by a controlled crash. I rest my case for not stupidly 'stepping outside the envelope'! Hello Modellers,
I firstly wanted to mention a concept I found in science fiction. Time travelling and guarding against committing a ‘minimum neccessary change’.
That is mistakenly interfering enough with history so that the whole path of history would be irrevocably changed – So would smothering Hitler at birth change history – or would all you needed to do was hold him up for fifteen seconds at a street corner so that he never met Hermann Goering??
A slick concept and worthy of cogitation.
However all you guys have been talking about modelling – or believe you have.
Actually you’ve been talking about planning and mapping abstractions. Don’t get me wrong. Nothing wrong with that.
But a model is something created in three dimensions that exists and operates in the fourth dimension of time. Depending on how well the model is designed it may emulate the thing that it is modelled upon reasonably well or be a complete flop and either refuse to begin working, work partly successfully but not sustainably – or operate well but in some fashion differently from that object it was intended to emulate.
Hey. Just ask several generations of schoolboys who started out making things fly with rubberband power even before the Wright Brothers got into the air. Many of these schoolboys are old farts now and still playing with their models.
Models that have become so complex and sophisticated that they require special certification and specially alloted airspace in order to fly.
Why do I mention this?
Simply to humbly suggest that to ‘model’ Great Gaia in all her beauty and enthralling complexity we risk stuffing up immensely if we try to modify her systems when we only have a few scrappy blueprints – when we completely lack the skill or means to make a true ‘model’ – when even if we tried the model would be, like those toys of a century ago, completely unguided and propelled by something that at best would have a ten second burst of power followed, at best, by a controlled crash.
I rest my case for not stupidly ‘stepping outside the envelope’!

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2700 examinator Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:02:44 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2700 It is commonly understood programming that acknowledges that in complex programs there are going to be ‘latent’ (compatibility) bugs may only occur in singularly rare and unconsidered (untested) circumstances even then they may remain “undetected” until the ‘right’ conditions. There are a number of historical incidents that a small bug caused a cascade of failures or aberrant errors. The more complex the data input, the number aggregated inputs in place of missing data (temperatures, air pressures etc) et al the more the ‘model’ must tend towards GIGO. Add to this the choice of language, programming style, nature of the programmer’s individual “took kit routines” and assorted compatibility issues add to the vulnerability of the model. Despite this models (and statistics) do serve very useful purposes, if only to provide tools for specialists in particular fields. To me the problems seem to be: • Incompatibilities of comprehension of goals of the program between the designer/programmer/user (different domains) • Programming can't compensate for unknowns with precision. • Climate dynamics are precise not an amalgam of “near enoughs.” Our knowledge of the impacts of all related issues is still far too embryonic to be able to claim ‘absolutes’. Ergo models are indicative not predictive. Notwithstanding this the evidence of global environmental stress is obvious. • Comparisons between valuing models and climate models are invalid for a number of reasons (some technical) except in a theoretical context. • It seems to me that there is sufficient evidence that our current modus operandi is both short termed (exploitative pejorative meaning) and ultimately limited. Therefore reliance on an incomplete understanding of “climate dynamics” and our scientific ability is unwise at best. It is commonly understood programming that acknowledges that in complex programs there are going to be ‘latent’ (compatibility) bugs may only occur in singularly rare and unconsidered (untested) circumstances even then they may remain “undetected” until the ‘right’ conditions. There are a number of historical incidents that a small bug caused a cascade of failures or aberrant errors.
The more complex the data input, the number aggregated inputs in place of missing data (temperatures, air pressures etc) et al the more the ‘model’ must tend towards GIGO.
Add to this the choice of language, programming style, nature of the programmer’s individual “took kit routines” and assorted compatibility issues add to the vulnerability of the model.
Despite this models (and statistics) do serve very useful purposes, if only to provide tools for specialists in particular fields.
To me the problems seem to be:
• Incompatibilities of comprehension of goals of the program between the designer/programmer/user (different domains)
• Programming can’t compensate for unknowns with precision.
• Climate dynamics are precise not an amalgam of “near enoughs.” Our knowledge of the impacts of all related issues is still far too embryonic to be able to claim ‘absolutes’. Ergo models are indicative not predictive. Notwithstanding this the evidence of global environmental stress is obvious.
• Comparisons between valuing models and climate models are invalid for a number of reasons (some technical) except in a theoretical context.
• It seems to me that there is sufficient evidence that our current modus operandi is both short termed (exploitative pejorative meaning) and ultimately limited. Therefore reliance on an incomplete understanding of “climate dynamics” and our scientific ability is unwise at best.

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2701 Arjay Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:04:15 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2701 A good observation Graham.The Merrycans[Bush speak] are no longer the happy can do nation.It will take years to sort out this financial mess. Things must be really tough there.NSW has been in the doldrums for a few yrs now especially in the building industry.Guess what,the morons want to tax us even more to pay for their mistakes! The big challenge will be bring confidence back so people will again feel confident enough to spend.Otherwise,if this continues,AGW will be the least of our worries. A good observation Graham.The Merrycans[Bush speak] are no longer the happy can do nation.It will take years to sort out this financial mess.
Things must be really tough there.NSW has been in the doldrums for a few yrs now especially in the building industry.Guess what,the morons want to tax us even more to pay for their mistakes!
The big challenge will be bring confidence back so people will again feel confident enough to spend.Otherwise,if this continues,AGW will be the least of our worries.

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2702 Graham Young Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:45:44 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2702 I agree with John. I don't have a problem with modelling per se, but it has its limits and should never be a substitute for thinking. You need to have systems which check the models, and you shouldn't just assume that a model is right. Much theoretical physics is really about building a model to explain the universe. But in good science they then go away and construct experiments to test the model. The Large Hardron Collider is an attempt to check the model of the universe that we now use to understand our world. If they don't find the Higgs Boson, then we will know that the model is not as good as we thought. That's a $7(?)Billion investment in checking a model. What is strange about Climate Research is that there appears to be little research money being spent robustly putting the models to the test. When someone comes up with an objection, they are treated like a crank. I agree with John. I don’t have a problem with modelling per se, but it has its limits and should never be a substitute for thinking. You need to have systems which check the models, and you shouldn’t just assume that a model is right.
Much theoretical physics is really about building a model to explain the universe. But in good science they then go away and construct experiments to test the model. The Large Hardron Collider is an attempt to check the model of the universe that we now use to understand our world. If they don’t find the Higgs Boson, then we will know that the model is not as good as we thought. That’s a $7(?)Billion investment in checking a model.
What is strange about Climate Research is that there appears to be little research money being spent robustly putting the models to the test. When someone comes up with an objection, they are treated like a crank.

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/09/22/sub-prime-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2703 John Tons Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:15:31 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3396#comment-2703 Lyn the point that you make about being reliant on modelling is precisely the problem. There is nothing wrong with modelling per se, it is an effective tool to use when investigating possibilities. The problem is that it is used as a substitute for thinking by people who do not fully understand the nature of modelling. (and to be fair even some who should know) But I guess that is politics. Lyn the point that you make about being reliant on modelling is precisely the problem. There is nothing wrong with modelling per se, it is an effective tool to use when investigating possibilities. The problem is that it is used as a substitute for thinking by people who do not fully understand the nature of modelling. (and to be fair even some who should know) But I guess that is politics.

]]>