Computer models of the oil spill

Chris Wilson points me to this visualization of three physical models of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Cool (and scary) stuff. Wilson writes:

One of the major advantages is that the models are 3D and show the plumes and tails beneath the surface. One of the major disadvantages is that they’re still just models.

4 thoughts on “Computer models of the oil spill

  1. I am not sure how to take the second sentence.. Models are just models? We are supposedly able to discriminate between models using statistical techniques, aren't we?!

  2. I assume he was just warning people that the graphs are not displaying direct measurements. In a deep sense, I agree with you that there is no sharp distinction between "direct measurements" and "model-based inferences," but in a rough sense there are inferences that are very close to the data and inferences that are more speculative, and I suppose these models are the latter.

  3. Perhaps warning people the models are likley to be importantly wrong in many ways as distinct to "direct measurements"

    As for "direct measurements" Peirce had a neat way of putting that – "You don't see a rose you hypothesize (have a model) that you are seeing a rose and don't come to doubt it (fail to reject the model).

    I thought is was a very appropriate comment.

    K?

  4. A massive problem with these models is that they don't account for the fact that the oil gets dissipated in various ways (it evaporates, and it also gets eaten by various organisms). The net result is that the oil is presented as spreading much further and in greater concentrations than will actually happen.

    (At least, many of the prominently-featured simulations have this problem: I didn't investigate these specific ones)

Comments are closed.