Climatology as Pure Science vs as Applied Science

“Pure” sounds so much higher, but in many ways applied science has higher standards. I’ve been saying this for years.

Judith Curry makes the point effectively here.

Yet another hat tip to Neverending Audit.


  1. Hope this is an appropriate place, if not feel free to bump it or dump it. Wednesday all day on National Public Radio's website:(,lqj6,dv,j0of,3cjy,js8a,lyyo ) Join us tomorrow for Climate and Sustainability: Moving by Degrees from 8:00 a.m. to5:30 p.m. PT at (,lqj6,dv,j0of,3cjy,js8a,lyyo ) and on twitter @ (,lqj6,dv,kskt,7ldk,js8a,lyyo ) #MPclimateParticipate in this one-time-only event by posting questions and ideas to the day'smoderators and participants. Stream live video of keynote speech by Andrew Revkin,NYT Dot Earth blogger.Participate in discussions with panelists Joe Romm, Dr.Michael E. Mann, Michael Levi and others.Watch exclusive online-only interviews withDr. Stephen Schneider, Stanford University; Eric Pooley, BusinessWeek; and ElizabethKolbert, The New Yorker. (,lqj6,dv,u5g,c3r6,js8a,lyyo ) View thecomplete agenda. Spread the word to invite others and join attendees from acrossthe nation for this online event.

  2. You (and Curry) have a point, but I'm not sure it's the correct point. Yes, I expect that good software V&V practices will become a part of climate modelling as used for policy making, just as we see in the nuclear industry.Will it make climate models more correct? Probably somewhat, at great expense. Still, I remember Steve Easterbrook finding that the informal QA methods used in climatology already produce remarkably high quality code.And of course we all know that the real issues with climate modelling quality are in representing the physics, rather than formal code correctness. This is optimizing the trees for the forest, and probably a very subopimal use of resources if overall quality is the objective.Yet, I have no doubt we are going there. It's politically inevitable. But let's be explicit: it's about creating the appearance of rigor. As such, it is just another (small) aspect of scientists having to get much better at public relations. What you have written about a lot, Michael.

Leave a Reply