Consensus Science 43

[zdas04]

We hear a lot right now that "97% of climate scientist agree that climate change is human caused". Always 97%. Ten different "independent" studies all find 97% of the climate scientists agree. I've done experiments with a far narrower band of uncertainty than a poll of scientists and gotten a range of answers that mostly fell within the error band of the instrument being used. Polls of people tend to have an error band upwards of +/-5%, but these studies keep finding 97%. An independent study in Michigan looked at 1200 peer-reviewed papers and contacted the authors and found that 97% agreed. In East Anglica an independent evaluation found the same thing. In Pittsburgh, still 97%. And on. And on.

If we go back into history we find that in the 1500's approximately 97% of the scientists vilified Johannes Kepler for applying the tools of physics (a branch of "natural philosophy") to astronomy (a branch of mathematics within liberal arts). This work was widely reviled and the giants of the time like Tycho Brahe (who had been his mentor) refused to even consider his heresy when first published. 97% of the scientists accepted Astrology as science and rejected astronomy. Consensus is simply not proof of anything.

Tycho Brahe published extensively on "Geocentrism". 97% of the contemporary scientists agreed. Copernicus and Kepler were reviled for the concept of heliocentrism at the time. Today's consensus is that the sun doesn't really revolve around the earth. Bet those 97% would be embarrassed that today's consensus is that the sun is moving in space and that the earth is revolving around it. Galileo was forced to spend much of his life under house arrest after the Inquisition found him "vehemently suspect of heresy" for supporting this theory. The consensus was against him.

97% of the worlds "intellectuals" once embraced the horror of eugenics. To the point where scholarly texts were cited in support of the morality of the Nazi death camps.

These are vivid examples of possible errors in "consensus science". There are many others. Today 97% of physicists find cold fusion to be a hoax. The best of them say that because it thus far has not been presented in a repeatable, verifiable protocol--fair assessment. The worst of them say it is "impossible" and turn their backs. I have a great deal of confidence that one day, an individual will develop that "repeatable, verifiable" protocol and the world will have control of fusion in some form, maybe even cold fusion. This proof will come from the mind of an individual, not from some stinking "consensus". Consensus is stagnation. Consensus is generating a representation of pi to a few thousand more decimal places.

That leads me back to "Climate Science". I could say that the "peers" who do "peer review" reject any paper with a thesis outside of the consensus, so interviewing "published climate scientists" is kind of a study in masturbation. I could say that the "proof" of AGW is bundled in self-fulfilling prophesies that are very reminiscent of the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" where everyone complemented the Emperor on his garments while he was parading naked until a child disagreed with the consensus and shouted that the Emperor was actually without clothing.

AGW us a theory based on an hypotheses. Nothing wrong with that. All scientific advances in the history of mankind have started with an hypotheses. Then they developed into theories that could be tested. Tests started out crude to show gross-level indications of the value of the theory. Over time the tests became more refined and allowed subtle evaluations and the new tests either supported (not proved) the theory or disproved it. We skipped a few of those steps with AGW. The hypotheses was postulated that certain gases seemed to be long-lived in the atmosphere and that these gases tended to insulate the heat on the earth from radiating into space. Very crude small scale experiments were designed that did not disprove the hypotheses. The next step should have been to larger scale, more subtle experiments, but instead we jumped to computational fluid dynamics to build climate models. Of course, without any physical controls, the models supported the hypotheses (it couldn't do anything else, a model can't be anything more than a reflection of the mind of its author). Things like urban heating (the so-called "heat island effect") and ocean currents couldn't be reconciled in the models so they became fudge factors that could be tweaked to force the models into compliance with the theory. By this time the media had latched onto this sound-byte theory and were stirring up fear and superstition among the masses. That led to government funding of climate science at unprecedented levels. After a few years of this ocean of funding going exclusively to people who showed results that seemed to be in support of the consensus hypotheses, people who's work did not support the hypotheses didn't get published anymore. They failed to get tenure. They found other ways to make a living. They left the 97%.

The only thing that I find less capable of predicting the future than computer models is polls of human beings. The only thing that I'm certain of is that some distant future historian (say in the year 2513) will look at this period in human history and write a footnote that one side or the other in this discussion was so obviously wrong headed that it is amazing that the race survived. One side says that the earth is warming and that actions by mankind both caused the warming and can reverse it via their actions. The other side says the climate is changing, the climate has always changed, and the climate will always change and the causes and effects have not been proven, nor are those causes and effects particularly relevant (because if the change is not one thing then it must be some other thing, i.e., if mankind isn't causing the change then it might be cosmic rays, sunspots, or volcanism).

My Engineering mentor once told me that a bit of work that I had done was very much like "lacquering a turd, you've made it all pretty and shiny, gotten rid of the worst of the odor, but it is still a piece of shit". I contend that the vast majority of work in climate science is exactly the same category of effort. There are no circumstances where I will accept a computer model as "proof" of anything. I use computer models to help me predict the outcome of experiments, not in lieu of experimentation.





David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

zdas04 - thank you very much for starting this thread.

This whole malarkey about the Science being settled, and that people smarter than we have determined this, so shut up and take the medicine is such a load of

, it truly is a wonder that there are still rational people who buy it and believe it. Not that I am saying that rational people can't believe in what they believe to be the science, but that the science is soooo settled.

There are only political purposes to the meme of consensus. True science is aware of the whole suite of logical fallacies and tries to avoid them. Politics generally operates on principle that the populace is too stupid to appreciate what a logical fallacy is, and hence uses them to their advantage.

Notice, too, that whenever most of the consensus climate scientists are presented with an opportunity to debate the actual science, they decline. Really, if your position were that solid, you would use every opportunity to completely demolish the opposition. Instead, they run away, claiming that the science is so settled that there is no point in debating. For me, this was my Waterloo moment, when my eyes were opened to the political purposes of this topic. It was never about the science.

 

[zdas04]

TGS4,
I can't say how much I appreciate the sentiment. It means a lot.

TenPenny,
I am sure that Wall Street will (is) making a ton of money from Cap & Trade and Carbon Taxes, but those fortunes are really just the spill over from the real sharks. In the States, we were weeks away from forming a Cap & Trade Board on the pressies of the Chicago Board of Trade to facilitate trading carbon credits in 2009 (I believe, the exact time sequence has gotten fuzzy in my mind). The national version was killed by a narrow margin in Congress. But there is other stupidness to look at
[ul]
[li]Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative - This is a consortium of 6 mid-Atlantic states that have Cap & Trade. It has been in operation 6 years and so far the 19 auctions have netted $1.2 billion. Of the $1.2 billion, $765 million has gone to the states and the rest seems to be "administrative fees". This particular version only covers power plants larger than 25 MW, so it is just going after the easily quantifiable quantities. This is still the primary auction stage, reasonably limited opportunities for sticky fingers. The after-market trades are where the big money is made and that doesn't look like it has started yet[/li]
[li]California - Program went into effect this year and they've held three auctions. Again it is just primary market so far, but the May 3 auction ripped $300 million out of the California economy to give it to politicians. Their after market is still in its infancy, but with the scope of coverage of this law, it will be brisk[/li]
[li]European Trading Scheme - The big carbon generators in Europe quickly switched over to natural gas and the scheme is suffering from the lingering effects of a European Depression. The secondary market was marked by multi-billion euro scandals in the early days, but the primary market auction price is so low today that graft has slowed in the secondary market, but it hasn't disappeared.[/li]
[/ul]

In the U.S., so far the focus is on power generation, not "industrial sources". When it gets to that step, instead of 40-50 players in the auction, the number will be thousands of individual companies. Speculators (the Wall Street guys) will take positions betting on companies needing credits. The speculators credits will be traded in a brisk secondary market which will take a percentage of every transaction. So instead of billions of dollars, expect trillions of dollars to leave productive employment. Billions is bad enough.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[2dye4]

Challenging a scientific hypothesis must go beyond blind paranoia, it really must be some serious qualified analysis
on the same level as the challenged theory or methods.

Ignorant suspicion is meaningless.

The data collected by climate researchers is intentionally adulterated or modified.
BUT this is done to correct known errors, it is meaningless to just parrot the phrase 'adulterated data' as though that means something. Where is the proof that this adulteration drives the error larger.

Again one of the earliest 'models' was a partial differential equation. Are all PDE equal to 'computer models' and therefore completely useless for 'proving' things????
I think many engineers would be surprised at that assertion.

Zdas have you publicized your analysis that supports the problems you highlight, I would think someone would be willing to pay you handsomely to produce a credible and logical piece of research that shows clearly that the errors you assert exist in the climate research. Not a philosophical discussion of what is or isn't science but a real mathematical analysis showing the errors.

Zdas where is the information about the data being corrected prior to first storage, a link perhaps ??

As far as your assertion that models do not prove a hypothesis, what is your standard for 'proof'
Example:
Models show a particular transistor geometry to behave in a desired and necessary way on a piece of silicon, based on this 'model' and nothing else a chip is fabricated. In the companies experience this method works 97% of the time i.e. refining the model produces the function desired. Are they using their models as 'proof'??

 

[cranky108]

What if we were to mine iron, convert it to steel pipes, and spread it across the gas producing states of the US, which would change the earth geomagnitic field altering the global weather patterns?

I can think of altertives of what the theories say, and no one refutes them. Does that make me more correct than the 97%? Does any of my theory make even the sligest difference?

The point is the shutting off of debate, by funding and otsterising, of denighers does not make a theory correct.

I do agree some part of the man caused warming is correct, but am not willing to accept the goverment offered solutions as the only solutions.

 

[TomDOT]

2dye4,

I would have a lot more confidence in the conclusions if the data were all available both in raw form, and adulterated form together with the precise methodology used to perform the corrections.

Without the raw data, even the best papers are all on the basis of "trust me, you don't need to know the details."

Maybe someone slipped a decimal. Maybe equally valid but different assumptions could be used to correct the data in a different way.

We just don't know.

 

[TGS4]

Challenging a scientific hypothesis must go beyond blind paranoia, it really must be some serious qualified analysis on the same level as the challenged theory or methods.

Two responses: why? And what makes you think that the challenges are not serious?

There are four parts to the so-called science of CAWG. Each one will be challenged right here, before your very eyes. No blind paranoia, just good, solid engineering-based scientific approach.
1) The earth is warming. Well, we have instrument data measuring the air temperature going back maybe 150 years. The spatial distribution of that data became sufficiently uniform for ~80% of the land area maybe 50 years ago - Antarctica still has very few data points. That data is mostly highs-lows for 24 hour periods. The data is contaminated by urban heat island effects (truly, these are effects of anthropogenic nature), time of observation effects, and lack of humidity data. We have satellite-based data since 1979. Setting aside that the data is adjusted (some of the adjusted data had the adjustments lost in a "dog ate my homework" kinda way), stations were dropped, and spatial distribution issues, the data appears to indicate that the globe has increased in temperature, somewhat, since ~1850. And, we have ocean heat content data of reasonable spatial distribution starting in 2007, when the ARGO buoy set was fully deployed (deployment started in 2000) It is indeed a reasonable endeavour to question all of these details - and much research is still being done here. Nothing is settled. However, the generally-accepted figure is that the globe has heated about 0.7°C since ~1850. Does it make a difference if the number is 0.65°C or 0.75°C - damn straight it does. And we don't even have enough good-quality ocean heat content data for a full solar-cycle.
2) The observed warming is, at the 90%-100% confidence interval, caused by human emissions of CO2. This is a biggie. I think that we agree that, all else being equal, the experimental data (going back to Arrhenius) indicates that a doubling of CO2 will result in about a 1°C increase in temperature. Of course, on earth, nothing is ever equal. There are non-linear effects, chaos effects, random volcano eruptions, varying solar and galactic cosmic ray inputs, aerosols, black carbon, and of course, the water cycle. Oh yes, and the natural cycles, especially of the oceans, of which we know so very little about. There are so many fundamentals here that are not even understood, let alone synthesized, that it would be foolhardy to claim otherwise. And the output of a computer simulation that was designed to show that only the CO2 values have an effect, proves or demonstrates nothing. So, nothing settled here, either. Definitely there is much investigation needed into these natural phenomenon.
3) The warming will continue at a rate unprecedented in the earth's history, and the magnitude of the warming, combined with the rate of warming will generate catastrophe that threatens the entire biome. This part comes purely from the models that were used in 2) above. I work with models every day - they are only as good as the weakest link in the chain. Given that their predictive ability (even when they are trained to do so, most fail to hindcast last century's climate when only given the initial value of the state in 1900 and the dates/locations/intensity of volcanic activity and the known forcings - in fact some are so bad that a constrained random number generator would be better) is lousy, I'm going to say that the science here is definitely NOT settled and worthy of further investigation.
4) Humans can mitigate the catastrophe in 3) above by enacting carbon[sic]-taxes/cap and trade/emissions limits without damaging civilization as we know it, and that this approach is more economical than mitigating any damage as-it-comes. This pillar of CAGW rests firmly on 1), 2), and 3) being correct, AND they are also based on certain theories of economics that are also assumed to be correct. All of the solutions seem to involve more state-control of everyday activities, and less personal freedom. Is this part settled science - hell no. Even if it were settled, there are issues of individual freedom and rights that remain to be handled.

So, which part of the above do you think is settled so far beyond a reasonable doubt that it is irrational to question?

I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but I have some damn good questions. It would be irrational for me to not ask them. And I'm not the only one - racookpe1978 references a VERY popular blog - and those numbers that he quotes are only comments, the site itself generally ranks in the top 25,000 websites (per Alexa) in the entire world, which is usually one or two orders of magnitude above any blog discussing the "consensus". (As an aside, eng-tips.com ranks about 47,000th in the world).

 

[cvg]

2dye4 - your assumption that the "theory of greenhouse gasses..." is completely accepted - does not seem to be the consensus on this forum, it is a postulate, an assumption advanced for the purpose of debate, primarily by government paid "researchers". These are the same researchers paid to measure the amount of methane in cow farts. Now cows are also causing additional global warming. This postulate has not been advanced to the level of theory yet. It is far from a proven fact. Since there is no consensus on this formum, then it must be considered to be incorrect. (it would be totally irrational to assume otherwise)

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
"Blind paranoia", "Ignorant suspicion is meaningless", " it is meaningless to just parrot the phrase 'adulterated data' as though that means something". You are in a bit of a snit aren't you?

In the Global Warming Marathon Before Last (I don't even remember the name of the thread), everyone involved posted links to every possible view on every possible subject. One of those links went on at length to explain that each data point is "owned" by a particular individual (actually institution, but there is almost always one individual who is stuck with the incoming data). Each owner is expected to provide a "usable" data set which includes an adjustment for the Urban Heat Island effect (for example). The owner's are responsible for defining those adjustments and applying them to the raw data on the way into the database. Every definition is different and the magnitude and direction of the adjustment is not published. So one researcher may decide that urbanization adds 18C to every "urban" dataset. The next guy might decide that it is 8 C at night and 14 C during the day. Another may decide that certain stations require a 20C reduction. There are dozens of these aggregation points. I am quite certain, actually I "believe" that the "heat island effect" wouldn't know what nation or institution it belongs to, so if it is only 6 C, but gets a 18 C adjustment then you have introduced a bias into the data. Storing raw data and allowing researchers to apply their own fudge factors would be more sanitary. Do I KNOW that this is messing up the results? No. And neither does anyone else since the unadulterated data is destroyed in the process. If you go back to that thread and read through the 400 posts you should be able to find the link if it still exists ("Denier" sites tend to vanish with some regularity), but I'm not going to waste my time finding it for you. If you don't accept my assertion you are not going to accept the assertion of the article.

To get to the last point you described, those companies ran models, built prototypes, tested the prototypes, adjusted the computer model, repeat until you have confidence that the model can predict a single time step forward. A perfect use of computer models. They are not trying to "prove" anything. They are trying to apply computer models to a tangible, verifiable outcome. The model says "build it like this", they build it like that, it either works or it doesn't, no assertions required. If it doesn't work, then the model was "wrong" and they adjust their model parameters to fit reality. In other words the model is only predicting one step into the future. One step. If I have a climate model I have to assume a temporal granularity that will yield meaningful results. If I select a year, then seasonal variations get lost. If I pick a day the day/night variations get lost. If I select a second and it takes 25 million iterations per time step to converge and I have to do 86,400 time steps per day then it takes 8x10^16 iterations to predict a century. Letting a model run 10^16 iterations unchallenged is just a random number generator. Do you see the difference?

Your differential equation example is simply fun with words. I took an Econometrics class in college. That field is full of partial differential equations that try to predict behavior of economies over time. The individual differential equations have a strong basis in reality. Applying them to predict tomorrow's economic condition nearly makes sense (if you could get data of the quality required, which you can't). Applying them iteratively to predict changes in the economy next month or next year has not proven to develop a result that is very close to reality.

And no, I am not going to try to publish any analysis on Global Warming. I don't have the credentials. Only Tenured Professors of Climate Science need submit papers on this subject. I'm none of those things. I do find it funny that my Dad always said "If they have to call it 'Science' it isn't--Physics is 'Science', "Computer Science" isn't."

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[2dye4]

tgs4
Generally, it is well to ask all the questions that anyone needs to ask, but lack of answers does not imply failure of the science.

So for number 1 you outline many issues.
Can these issues be dealt with to improve climate estimation accuracy?
Can you prove that these issues cause errors of such magnitude that the underlying data is only recoverable to a certain confidence or better give error probability distributions vs time for these issues. This would constitute a good counter analysis.

Number 2
I agree that there are many hard to calculate details but much of this seems to not be terribly relevant to captured heat.
Some factors mentioned are extraneous to the issue of climate sensitivity such as volcanoes, cosmic radiation, solar flux..etc are not important to the issue. They may alter our climate but they are not alterable by us.
How many of these issues affect the heat flux balance through our atmosphere and can you or others make a sound scientific 'model' to demonstrate their importance in CO2 sensitivity that lowers predicted rises in temp.
No climate scientist or climate model has claimed ONLY CO2 has an impact on temperature and nothing else matters.

Number 3
I wish we could discuss this 'models' thing a little better. F=MA is a model, V=IR is a model and yet they are assumed
to be without any error in practice. Partial differential equations are models too, some devolve into chaos and some settle into stable solutions for time eternal. So are you and maybe Zdas really questioning models that devolve into chaos after a period of cycles?
The earliest climate model from 1980 was a stable PDE that did pretty well predicting temp rises to this day without considering circulations and many other listed factors.

Number 4
Is a separate but important question that has no bearing on the investigation into CO2 expected warming. It would be silly to not investigate because we don't have the answer yet.

Lastly I contend that small scale speculation like 1-4 does not challenge climate change science. To seriously challenge it would require detailed analysis with provided numbers on par with the analysis done by climate scientists. It simply is not sufficient to raise speculative issues unless someone pursues them in detail.
So by all means ask your questions, but please withhold judgement until you or others do the serious analysis.

Watts up with that is nothing but a political blog in disguise, Mr watts has been caught advocating to his supporters to disrupt reasonable debate with talking points and "shouting them down" to use his words.
I look at the site occasionally but every time i go there i find the same thing, unsubstantiated speculation, attacks on minor issues as though they were the whole, and suggestive writing tactics.

CVG

Yes the theory of greenhouse gasses is a widely accepted model. So another opportunity for researchers to disprove it, just go looking for the money. Many people in the carbon industry would pay millions if you could credibly cast doubt on it.

 

[rb1957]

"Not a philosophical discussion of what is or isn't science but a real mathematical analysis showing the errors." ... start with the research by Steve McIntyre (google "debunking the thockey stick")


Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TheTick]

It's hard enough to get a small group of people to report reliable data on something simple like the length of a board. I can't imagine what sort of reporting hijinx are happening with the global weather database. But, we gotta start somewhere.

 

[2dye4]

Zdas

If you you say is true of a significant portion of the incoming having non documented and inconsistent adjustments then of course you are correct that this is BS.

It can't be that simple, but I will investigate on my own.

I think when you speak of models you are referring to equations that dive into chaos after some time and that also have parameters that are unknown or only estimated. These are definitely very difficult models to deal with.
I still question whether the climate needs this level of modeling to accurately estimate the heat flux through the atmosphere but I dunno so much bout this.

Reminder of the simple stable PDE that did quite well modeling the temp rise. Not all models are so difficult to stabilize, say for instance thermal conduction in a homogenous medium of simple geometry. The PDE analysis could run on this till the sun burns out and still give essentially the same answer.

 

[TomDOT]

2dye4,

So, I can hand in a set of "adjusted" numbers, not tell you how I adjusted them or allow access to the raw data, and you will accept it?

Would you accept that for say, a bridge design? Trust me, the bridge will hold traffic loads up to 100,000 lbs live load. I calculated it. No need to see how I did it.

 

[Brad1979]

Here's why consensus matters. You're absolutely right that it doesn't prove anything. And in a perfect world everybody would be able to investigate the claims of climate scientists and come to their own conclusions. But in the real world the average person doesn't have the time or interest in staying up to date on the latest climate science. Scientific consensus is really the best thing the average person has. If you go to 100 doctors and the overwhelming majority of say you have cancer and need to start treatment right away, you should probably listen to the majority. Every single person on this forum knows this is how it works. I'd be willing to bet that very few people on this forum understand quantum mechanics, let allow done any experimentation regarding it, yet (I would hope) everyone accepts it as true. And you do so because there is a scientific consensus about it, not because you've verified for yourself that it is true. The same goes for every scientific theory that you aren't an expert in.

And lets be honest here. No "skeptic" on this forum is in any position to be challenging climate science. I'm sure you guys all think you have good reasons to doubt it. But do you guys honestly think that all your armchair questions haven't been thought of and answered by climate scientists? And let me be clear ... I don't have a problem with people questioning climate science (or any other science for that matter). My issue is with random people on the internet who think they are so smart that they've somehow debunked an entire field of study.

 

[chris3eb]

I feel that 2dye4 and Zdas are just missing each other, so perhaps I can clarify a little. I think that both would agree that in order to convince the scientific community of something, you should be able to provide evidence of your claim. From 2dye4's point of view, AGW is already accepted, so to contradict it, someone would need to provide evidence that AGW does not exist. 2dye4 thinks the burden of proof is on Zdas to *disprove* AGW. From Zdas's perspective though, AGW never made a compelling case as to its existence, so Zdas thinks the burden of proof is still on the AGW folks to prove that it does exist.

 

[TGS4]

Brad1979 - thank you very much... for bringing up the next in the round of logical fallacies: argumentum ad auctoritatem - the appeal to authority.

In a way, though, you are completely correct. I mean, after all, Newton's Laws were established facts for hundreds of years; heck, that's why they're called Laws of Science. That patent office clerk with little in the way of formal education was really in no position to challenge the consensus of the day. What's that random person, who thinks he's so smart that they've somehow debunked an entire field of study. I guess it's all Relative, right?

Puleeeeeze. I would wager that your average mechanical engineer has more training and experience with radiative heat transfer than your average Climate Scientist™. Same thing goes with computational fluid mechanics, of which any proper climate model would have to be. And furthermore, most Professional Engineers are bound by strict rules regarding ethics - a concept that seems to be foreign to many Climate Scientists (Peter Gleick, anyone). So, we are not dealing with random idiots on the street here - we are dealing with professionals who expertise meets or exceeds those of the Climate Scientists.

 

[zdas04]

Brad1979,
Quantum Mechanics is a really good example. The Reader's Digest version of the discipline that I've read seems very plausible and the (few) processes that I know about look to be sound science to me, and more importantly no one is trying to take billions of dollars out of the economy to change the spin of a quark through political fiat. My problem with Global Climate Change (or whatever it is called this month) is that we jumped from an "hypotheses" to "hysteria" without a pause at "contemplation". If it wasn't for the political/economic component, I would be looking at advances in climate science with interest instead of abject fear. The "greenhouse effect" is an interesting hypotheses that should have been evaluated before it became media fodder. Once the mainstream media got hold of it the chance for sober contemplation vanished. Now there is too much money on the table to walk away.

Chris3eb,
Read through the other 3 of these threads. What you described has been the common thread in all four now. Neither side of the discussion will ever accept the other side's givens.

2dye4,
The models get more fine-grained every year. The current state of the art has a grid size about the size of the state of Colorado. All fluid interactions within a grid block are homogeneous and the only interaction is at the cell walls. That says that a cell that overlaid Colorado would see the border with Kansas/Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. It treats Aspen the same as Lamar (about 8,000 ft elevation difference). Then when you lay the same grid over the Japanese current, it vanishes like the Colorado River does in that grid. Same with the Gulf Stream. The homogenizing effects of grid selection turn the data into pure chaos.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - thank you for your answers to my points. Reading through your responses, I kept thinking that maybe you were actually getting my perspective. The answer to a lot of those questions is that we don't have answers. That's not to say that we shouldn't study them, or that they are unimportant. On the contrary, they are vitally important. However, that there are so many dangling questions also indicate that: a) the science isn't settled, b) with more questions than answers, why the certainty that the answers of today are correct? I am very much open to the possibility that CAGW is true - but based on even a balance-of-probabilities level of "proof", the hypothesis as presented fails today.

You seem to be accepting that the science is not settled. So, perhaps you can explain to me why so many who accept the consensus want to shut down discussion and debate. I just don't get it.

Watts up with that is nothing but a political blog in disguise, Mr watts has been caught advocating to his supporters to disrupt reasonable debate with talking points and "shouting them down" to use his words.
I look at the site occasionally but every time i go there i find the same thing, unsubstantiated speculation, attacks on minor issues as though they were the whole, and suggestive writing tactics.

Those are interesting talking points from the likes of SkepticalScience (can you say projection??). I'm been reading that website off and on for more than 6 years, and I haven't observed that. In fact, if you want to see some real science done, you should see the crowd-review for the Watts et al 2012 paper. There were some issues related to time-of-observation that were not captured appropriately in the paper. Although the conclusions were politically-correct for the readership, the commenters were ruthlessly skeptical and appropriately tore the paper apart. Whereas the same cannot be said of the consensus blogs about the abomination that is Cook et al 2013 - the subject of zdas04's OP. Now, on that basis, which are the political blogs?

 

[2dye4]

No doubt SkepticalScience is biased politically like wattsupwiththat.

Neither is absolutely real science.

chris3eb is correct in his analysis of this debate.

I think the burden is on challengers to put up serious scientific work that challenges the warming predictions.
Why there is none is a very curious question for me, and no, mainstream publication censorship would not preclude the research.

I do think that there is an much more extensive body of credible work that supports climate change and nearly NONE that adequately challenge the hypothesis of warming.

The hockey stick temp spike is valid and occurring despite the decade long flattening in temperature which can be caused by many things.

The key is the duration of the effect. MMGW theory suggests that the warming will increase with CO2.
Historical temp trends have displayed a random character that is of a different nature than the steady rise in observed temps.

One trick used is to model a zero mean random process as the response of a linear system to a white noise input. When the linear system is chosen such that the statistics match the observed then inferences about probability can be made on the upward trend.

It is necessary to check such a statistical model of the random component of climate measurements for the likelihood of an occurrence of such a rise as the industrial era spike.
Put more simply, consider the rate of rise and the overall shape of the hockeystick during the 100 year industrial period.
Now in the last 2000 years of reconstructed data there are 20 opportunities for such a random process to manifest this shape. It has not done so in those 2000 years if you believe the reconstructions. So we have a (1/20) probability event occurring exactly in sync with the theoretical prediction.

 

[Brad1979]

Puleeeeeze is right. If you had paid attention in that philosophy course you were talking about you'd know that nothing I said was a fallacy. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious. For example, I in no way said anything was true just because experts say it is. That would be a fallacy. All I said is that for the average person, he or she is quite correct in accepting what the consensus of the climate scientists. In the same way you are quite right in accepting the consensus of every science you aren't an expert in.

"we are dealing with professionals who expertise meets or exceeds those of the Climate Scientists"

First you have absolutely no evidence of that. Second, I think these 2 threads have pretty much proven that engineers don't know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to climate. The fact that you know heat transfer or fluid dynamics doesn't mean you know the first thing about the climate.