Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 10:07am PT
|
Is that not a correct "assumption" EDH and/or Larry?
that assumption is based on what?
the "trend line" that indicates flat temperature anomaly is incorrect, as you extend it into the past you get a result that is in disagreement with the data.
so what makes you think that pushing that trend line into the future will give you a better idea of what the trend actually is?
If your assumption is that a constant trend line is a correct description of the temperature anomaly over time, it is demonstrably incorrect, just extend it back to 1900 and you'll be off by a huge amount.
You want to try again, The Chief?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 11:44am PT
|
No, let's just keep it at where SAT data (1975ish) began EDH.
LOL, like that would change Ed's point.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
|
even if you keep it at 1975, you're assumption of a constant temperature anomaly is incorrect...
why 1975? why are the satellite measurements significant?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 12:50pm PT
|
Bruce,
Here's an interesting article in The Economist that supports what I wrote above regarding problems with modern "science." (Remember the quotation marks are to distinguish real science from the snake oil salesmen.)
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble
Ed, I suppose you don't consider The Economist to be a reputable publication but I can assure you that most informed members of the public do (that's not to say they consider everything in The Economist that's ever been written to be gospel).
If the generally informed members of the public think there's a problem with science, then there is indeed a problem. Even if you're right and The Economist is wrong (which I don't believe for a second), there is a problem with public perception, and at the end of the day, that's what will govern what society does in response to so-called "global warming" (which morphed into "climate change," and which I suppose may even morph into global cooling at some point--I have no doubt our favorite hornswoggler can give at least five different reasons (perhaps contradictory, but so what?) why that would further prove that he and his fellow "scientists" have been right all along).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 14, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
|
Ed, I suppose you don't consider The Economist to be a reputable publication ...
You are twisting what Ed said.
Here, take a look:
I don't think it [The Economist] says that... and if it does, it is quite incorrect.
 Ed
Hopefully you read the detailed article in The Economist more carefully than you read the simple sentence that Ed wrote.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 01:26pm PT
|
If the generally informed members of the public think there's a problem with science, then there is indeed a problem.
But do you believe that the informed members of the public think there is a (important) problem with science? Or do you for example think that rick, the chief and sketch are informed members of the public...?
While reading the comments sections and many of the articles on "skeptic" blogs like whatsupwiththat the last thing I think are that most of those people are informed. It is mostly cheer leading.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
|
Hey EDh, why not. That is when 90% of the current 69 or so CC/Earth Systems/RCM models began.
ah, no, the models actually output values back to 1900 (at least).
but I'll post once I get home.
The "public" has no such concern, blahblah, as few of them imagine science being in their lives at all. To the extent that science is, usually it is medicine, and usually the dissatisfaction comes from the lack of scientific support for treatment (e.g. mammography, PSA tests, etc).
As for scientific fraud, what you know about it is entirely due to the fact that an independent check of the experiment, known as reproducibility, failed and in the effort to reconcile the different and independent experimental results the fraud was uncovered.
This generally happens in "high valued" science, generally health research related, and is due to the economic pressures from institutions on researchers to demonstrate success. The conflicting interests of those institutions on demonstrating success (financial success) and academic success (requiring high integrity research results) puts some naive (generally young) researchers in a bind.
Interestingly, the private sector response is to make research private and guarded, property which is not to be shared with the outside world. This may protect some "intellectual property" but it inhibits the natural checks that public research is subject to. Cold Fusion is an example, which Pons and Fleishman famously recused from the scientific community's scrutiny claiming the need to protect intellectual property. That bogus research continues, shrouded from view.
The Chief, rick, blahblah are all able to download the data from the climate science research supported by the USG and then to analyze. The same data the climate researchers use.
Proudly proclaiming your ignorance, it seems that you set yourselves up to be hornswoggled by anyone who can produce an "analysis" of the data... you cannot tell the difference, nor can you verify the results independently. You have an opinion of the results without having any information.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 01:37pm PT
|
Even if you're right and The Economist is wrong (which I don't believe for a second),
I missed the part about global warming in the economist article. Can you show it to me?
To me it seems like you make a little more sophisticated version of Rick's main argument.
1. There are some problems with science (science is not perfect).
2. You don't like the conclusions that climate science came up with.
So you draw the conclusion that climate science is wrong.
Rick doesn't even care about 1. He already know that everything he disagrees with is incorrect but you don't seem to do much better when you seems to draw the conclusions from some general problems from different areas of science to the area we are discussing.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 04:30pm PT
|
I missed the part about global warming in the economist article. Can you show it to me?
To me it seems like you make a little more sophisticated version of Rick's main argument.
1. There are some problems with science (science is not perfect).
2. You don't like the conclusions that climate science came up with.
So you draw the conclusion that climate science is wrong.
Rick doesn't even care about 1. He already know that everything he disagrees with is incorrect but you don't seem to do much better when you seems to draw the conclusions from some general problems from different areas of science to the area we are discussing.
The Economist article wasn't on global warming specifically, and I never said that it was. Rather, the point of it was that much of "science" doesn't survive scrutiny, and the theory of the warmists that "science" is self correcting doesn't seem to work very well in practice (as a general proposition).
Maybe the science will become settled in the long run, but as they say, in the long run we'll all be dead.
Meanwhile, the scientists would have the public fundamentally reorganize society according to their crackpot theories, all the while increasing public spending for "science," that is, for the "scientists."
Some of us are just suggesting that everyone take a few deep breaths (a little extra CO2 won't hurt you), calm down, and recognize that climate change "scientists" and their cohorts are hardly honest brokers in this game (think Al Gore and huge investment funds "investing" in industries not for their intrinsic value but for the value generated by government regulations, and the opportunities for corruption that presents).
As I've written before on this thread, I think almost everyone agrees that the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause a very modest increase in temperatures that is generally linear with the amount of introduced CO2 and is manageable. But the theories of extreme positive feedbacks, while not really susceptible to disproof, don't seem to be playing out, and increased CO2 has at least some benefits (remember that high school biology class on photosynthesis).
And for this view I'm mercilessly attacked by Chiloe and "the gang." (I suppose I'm guilty of responding in kind to the ad hominems, I never claimed to be a saint.) I think that's fairly typical of the way "scientists" deal with anyone who dares to question their pronouncements, and is it any wonder that the public has grown a little tired of the whole affair is ready to move on to the next crisis?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 14, 2014 - 04:37pm PT
|
Rather, the point of it was that much of "science" doesn't survive scrutiny, and the theory of the warmists that "science" is self correcting doesn't seem to work very well in practice (as a general proposition).
The article is about "much of science doesn't survive scrutiny." But, you have thousands of scientists pouring over the climate data, trying to find what it means.
You are extrapolating an general statement about science to a very specific field--does your assumption hold up?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
|
You are extrapolating an general statement about science to a very specific field--does your assumption hold up?
I honestly don't know. Just try to follow this thread and you'll see how it goes round and round!
Consider the so-called "pause"--
has there been one? Was there one and it's now over? Was the apparent "pause" the result of sampling only a part of the planet, and there's been huge warming in the unsampled part? What role if any does the "magic ocean" play? This just from my unaided memory--there's a lot more to it than that.
All I can say is that at least in some cases the "scientists" seem to have constructed a house of cards.
(And yes, I do believe in science without quotation marks, but the tricky part is figuring out what part of it to believe. It's like going to the doctor--we all know that modern medicine can be extremely helpful and life-saving for lots of things, but it's worthless in others. Ask most middle-aged lifer climbers how successful doctors have been in treating standard climbing related overuse injuries. Most of us give up on actual doctors and just rely on whatever witchcraft is presently in vogue.)
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 05:32pm PT
|
latest in crackpot conclusions:
"The Economist article wasn't on global warming specifically, and I never said that it was. Rather, the point of it was that much of "science" doesn't survive scrutiny,"
(which means it is self-correcting when it matters, and thus the "science" has indeed survived.)
and then your very next made up leap wrongly claims the article suggests
" and the theory of the warmists that "science" is self correcting doesn't seem to work very well in practice (as a general proposition)."
So you contradict yourself immediately. You are claiming that the broad findings of climate science, which are being investigated by many, should be lumped together with anecdotal studies of mostly little significance. Clinical trials of obscure drugs are not widely scrutinized by anyone except those who will profit.
Minor papers on psychology may not be corrected soon because not many researchers actually care about that particular study.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 06:38pm PT
|
My god, do any of you CAGW folk have actual jobs or are you wasting your employers time and money? I work longer, harder and more effectively in my semi retirement than any two of you CAGW blowhards.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 06:49pm PT
|
I am home now... rick you make a lot of assumptions which are incorrect, but that is nothing new.
As for The Chief... here is the NOAA data set from 1975 to 2013
the green line is the average of the temp anomaly from 2000 to 2013
the purple line is the average from 1975 to 2000
and the red line is the average from 1975 to 2013
now the purple line is not a good prediction of the green line, or is it?
there is a +0.82ºF difference in the two averages...
and the temps are going up between the two averages.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 07:08pm PT
|
Forgive me professor, I see that each of your time series plots has a higher or lower anomaly starting point, but why is there no slope, are they not trend plots?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 08:06pm PT
|
What is escaping me gland mam, is the rising u.s. temps that used to be claimed in breathless report after breathless report by the sky is falling crowd for the period of the 80's through 90's. Has the data been reinterpreted, and the past cooled for this period In order for a claim of warming to be made instead of a fifteen year pause. Still, even with the step change of the super El Nino ,and rough plateau (the pause) of subsequent years, the entire satellite era time series plot ( the only plot long enough to be considered climate versus weather change as per your guys interpretation) shows no upward slope. Just the single step change anomaly aversge of 2000-2013 that will have to corrected downwards with the sinking solar activity as enough future years are added to approach an average of weather over a minimum period of thirty years as the red plot shows.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 08:13pm PT
|
from the Economist OpEd…
example
1) PLOS paper, subject: psychology, sociology, independent experiments failed to replicate the result
2) biomedical research replication failures, as shown by independent attempts to perform the same experiements
3) analysis of the statistics used in many biomedical research papers is incorrect
4) similar analysis of Psychology research areas
5) Pentaquarks, please see my papers on this… the result was immediately questioned by the community and additional analysis of independent experiments. The “double blind” experiments weren’t a factor…
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.152001
http://qd.typepad.com/35/2005/09/free_coca_cola_.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5700/1281.summary
(here’s the article: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/files.php?pid=217293&aid=15388 )
the original experiment was repeated, and analyzed using double-blind methodology, and didn’t see anything, but the evidence wasn’t there in the other, independent experiments long before then.
6) Genetics
7) Trick papers - I find this quite unfortunate, sending intentionally incorrect papers to be reviewed to “test” the reviewers. These results are eventually reviewed if they are important results by someone else, independently. If they are incorrect, they are so revealed.
nearly all of the examples are in biomedical research, this does not represent “all science” by a long shot, and obviously, given the financial stakes in the private sector, one might even guess that you’d find a huge pressure there.
However, these cases are all found out because they could be replicated, or if insufficient information is available, discovered in the attempt to replicate.
That is to say, science works.
I found this interesting quote in the article, too:
“Statisticians have ways to deal with such problems. But most scientists are not statisticians.”
How interesting that Chiloe is a statistician, and so is aware of “such problems” but is discounted by those who feel they are “hornswoggled”.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 08:17pm PT
|
"...are they not trend plots"
they are trend plots, rick, you don't know what you are talking about. Nor The Chief,
Please explain what you mean by "trend plot" The Chief can too. What are you trending?
In the plots I have posted, the "trend" is for the anomaly to be constant, as I explained above. The Chief (and now you) are asking for a different trend, what is it you are asking for.
We can see from my plots that a time independent "trend" is probably not a good description of the temperature anomaly.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!