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"

 

[rconnor]

Firstly, it looks like some of my comments were truncated/messed up when copying it over, my apologies.

Zdas,

Yes I did read your post zdas and, as I admitted before, I found the purpose behind it a little obscure. I offered 4 possible interpretations and gave responses to all of them. However, judging by your response, I’m not sure if you read mine. Admittedly it was long winded and with some copy/paste errors.

Regarding my challenge against the anecdotes you provided, I’m not questioning that the historical accuracy of your statements or that those consensuses supported a theory that turned out to be false, I’m questioning the relevancy they have to this discussion.

I pointed to the idea that when considering historically events, you must judge the actions based on the knowledge at the time, which you choose to bluntly (and blindly) reject, so allow me to reiterate. You cannot bring back modern scientific understanding to judge 16th century scientific consensuses/actions. You also cannot bring forward 16th century scientific understanding to judge modern scientific consensuses/actions. The fact that geocentrism (or any of the other anecdotes) was the consensus at the time, which turned out to be false, says very little (to nothing) about whether the consensus surrounding the CAGW theory is wrong. The understanding of basic physics/science, experimental equipment, background research in the area and socio-political climate between then and now is far too different to draw a meaningful comparison. There is also nothing in the comparison that would differentiate the consensus in the CAGW theory with any other scientific consensus. By this logic, geocentrism was wrong therefore receiving vaccinations is likely wrong or String theory is likely wrong. So not only is your point lacking comparative relevancy, it is also ambiguous. This, in of itself, would not have bothered me if you left out the connections to the holocaust.

The rest of your post I addressed in my first post and, in fact, you’ll find it in agreement with some of what you said.

TGS4,

I appreciate the compliment. Although we don’t agree on some of the points, I find that most of your posts open the floor for a rational conversation as well (I gave you a star for your last post in the last GW thread because the language and tone was really amicable and it invited conversation). I’ll touch on your points later but I just wanted to tip my hat back to you. (also, thanks 2dye4, I hope they do give it some thought as well..looks like TGS4 has)

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
You have a whole lot more faith in the micro-evolution of our species than I do. I like to read historical fiction and I don't see much difference in human motivation, venality, and nobility as described by Homer, Dickens, or Grisham. Folks just pretty much keep being folks. I would be amazed if cavemen were not as henpecked as I am. Different ages tend to satisfy Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to different extents, but in the time of Kepler there was a leisure class and I would be shocked if they didn't have much the same discussions as are happening in East Anglica, Berkeley, and the University of Queensland today. Something like "I'm not sure I understand Joe's point, but he backed my theory so I have to line up behind him". "Yeah we'll shun the jerk that is disrespecting him, maybe we can get the [Bishop/Dean] to [subject him to the Inquisition/deny him tenure]" Big minds can and do (and have always done) some amazingly small things.

Trusting consensus in any age is: (a) the end of innovation in that field; and (b) comfortable. People keep telling me that "the science is settled" on AGW, "all competent investigators agree". If those statements satisfy your curiosity, them have a happy life. They don't satisfy me. I read hundreds of Peer Reviewed papers on the subject in preparing one of the Oil & Gas Industry's responses to EPA GHG regulations for the API (check the docket on public comments to the 2011 modification to the Glean Air Act, Subpart OOOO). Every one of them relied upon computer modeling to project some parameter forward decades, and expressly ignored inconvenient data (as in "the ice core data from xxxx and yyyy do not correlate with the rest of the data so the data from these cores is assumed to be of questionable quality"). That is the quality of work that passes peer review in this field. I gotta say that the science is anything but settled.

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"

 

[racookpe1978]

OK.

Now, read in detail! - all of the this thread at WattsUpWithThat.

It discusses in detail the method and "professionalism" and "scientific analysis" that purports to be behind today's CAGW theists:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/

As a WordPress.com site, you will need to establish a login ID before writing comments. Otherwise, please feel free to jump in that analysis.

Now, when reading how these "adjustments" of 01.2 to 0.3 degree on every Surface Seawater Temperature (SST) data point before 1941 was adjusted by the "experts" read in detail what assumptions they make in their programs: air temperature, ship speed, depth of the water sample, deck height, bucket, canvas bag, sea water engine intake, evaporation rates of the sample, calibration (or lack thereof) for the thermometers used, stability of the thermometer and how it was stored, how long it was left in the water, where the bucket was stored and how long it was stored before taking the measurement, accuracy of location of the sample, size of the bucket.....

Now, since the entire earth has warmed only 0.1 degree from its baseline in 1975 to April's satellite global measurements, just how valid is a "scientific theory" that requires its baseline measurements be "adjusted" - BASED ONLY ON ASSUMED SEA WATER METHODS - to change tens of thousands of ship measurements over a 150 year period - when that one "adjustment" is three times the size of the signal being analyzed?

 

[TPL]

Hi David...I'm 100% with you on this.
Try this one for size - see what nonsense us poor Brits have to put up with.............

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Lilley-Stern_Rebuttal.pdf

 

[2dye4]

racookpe

The only thing i got from the wattsup link you posted is that the researchers made good efforts to correct for known errors.

Also i noticed the 'new' format the author used with only the talking points bolded for the busy climate change denier.

So is the author unhappy that corrections were made at all??
I found no serious analysis proving the corrections resulted in less accurate estimates, only speculation.

You know comparisons to a monthly data point are not really relevant.

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - I've just about had it with your blinders and "denier" talk. Please, do tell us what "climate change" the you think some of us are "denying". I would throw it back in your face and say that you are the natural-cause climate change denier. You seem to deny that any climate change is natural and that all we have been seeing is man-made. Who's the denier now?

...researchers made good effort to correct for known efforts

Apparently you didn't actually read the article. The early measurements were, in no way, scientific. Trying to make adjustments to crappy data still results in crappy data.

Try pulling your head out of your a$$ for all of five seconds and maybe you might learn something. Then, you are welcome to shove it back up there and join this "data".

 

[2dye4]

tgs4

Sorry that you don't approve. But I think its time for some to fight back against the 'citizen scientist' effort to cast doubt on climate change theory with mush headed emotional arguments.

And wattsup website is a fine example of this nonsense. Nothing but isolated sniping at scientific work they cannot or choose not to understand and generation of talking points and suspicion to keep the appearance that the debate is still raging.

So let the games begin.

 

[TGS4]

What - you think that only the approved priesthood is permitted to "do science"? I see that you still have your head stuffed so far, it's cutting off the oxygen to your brain.

Besides, the burden of proof is still on the CAGW folks to demonstrate that what is going on is not "natural". Perhaps you've heard of a little thing called the null hypothesis? No doubt needs to be cast on something that has not yet proceeded beyond hypothesis.

All that post showed was that the sea surface temperatures and sea-depth temperatures from the pre-ARGO times are crap. There was no scientific method used. So, any "adjustments" to the record is just polishing a turd.

Perhaps if the CAGW hypothesis were so solid, based on solid data, solid evidence, solid science, then all of these questions would be answered.

I, for one, am very happy to see the citizen science movement, with the help of blogs scattered across the world, come to pass. It helps to shine light on the dirty little secrets hiding in the shadows. Sunlight is definitely the best cleaner.

 

[racookpe1978]

Global Ocean Surface Temperature Atlas (Gosta) M. Bottomley, C. K. Folland, J. Hsiung, R. E. Newell and D. E. Parker, Meteorological Office (Bracknell) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990. No. of Pages: iv + 20; No. of plates: 313

http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/gosta/intro.html#RTFToC6

A. Provisional corrections

The models assume that the freely evaporating water in an uninsulated canvas bucket with an open-top water surface is kept agitated and so has uniform temperature. Account is taken of the heat fluxes arising from the following causes during the process of measurement, given climatological winds and temperatures (derived from MOMMDB for 1951-80) and humidities and cloudiness (derived from CDS for 1949-79):

1. The difference between the external air temperature and the temperature of the water in the bucket;

2. The difference between the atmospheric vapour pressure and the saturation vapour pressure of the freely evaporating surface, assumed to be at the temperature of the water in the bucket;

3. The strength of the wind around the bucket, based on climatological data but with allowances for sheltering by the ship’s structure and for an assumed mean ship’s speed of 4 m s-1, assuming random ships’ headings relative to the wind;

4. The influence of the mass of the thermometer, having a fixed assumed thermal capacity and considered to be initially at the air temperature, when plunged into the bucket;

5. The short-and long-wave radiation incident on the bucket.

The combination of (1), (2) and (3) and to some extent (4) renders uninsulated bucket SST values too cold in mid-latitude winter; whereas (5) and to a small extent (4) can make uninsulated bucket SST values less cold, or even a little too warm, in mid-latitude summer. The net result is spurious annual cycles of pre-war SST anomalies relative to a post-war SST climatology which contains a much smaller proportion of uninsulated bucket data. Corrections based on a variety of models (assuming, for example, different sizes of bucket or different degrees of reduction of the wind speed by the ship’s structure) were found to be very similar, so long as the period allowed for heat transfer was varied until the corrections, when applied to observed SST, minimized the spurious annual cycles. The corrections applied, for a given calendar month and location, were the average of the corrections derived from several models. In view of the possibility (Brooks 1926, quoting Krummel 1907) that buckets were more often exposed to direct solar radiation in the 19th century, a set of models assuming the incidence on the bucket of full climatological direct monthly mean solar radiation was used for the period 1856-1900, whereas for 1901-41 25% of climatological direct solar radiation was assumed, yielding corrections which were more positive by 0.02 deg. C to 0.04 deg. C than the corrections for the same calendar month and location for the earlier period. The corrections are described as Scheme B in Table 2. Further details of the technique are given in Folland and Parker (1990), who, however, used corrections as in Scheme C in Table 2, i.e. intermediate between the “provisional” and “refined” corrections used in this Atlas.

So in Step 3 they estimated “the strength of the wind around the bucket” prior to 1942, based on climatological data” “derived from MOMMDB for 1951-80″, made “allowances for sheltering by the ship’s structure”, “assumed mean ship’s speed of 4 m s-1″ and assumed “random ships’ headings relative to the wind”. Step 3 of the “Provisional Corrections” alone seems to offer enough estimates, allowances and assumptions to allow for any conclusion desired…

All to move the data by 0.3 degrees C (in the "right" direction to show the warming they want to see after 1950), to look for a change over 150 years that totaled 0.5 degrees?

 

[TGS4]

racookepe1978, and don't forget that these adjustments are made on uncontrolled data.

You are right, though, all to show what they think that the data should say, in order to fit the data to the hypothesis.

I guess the citizen scientists have to take the role of little children in The Emperor's New Clothes tale. None if the anointed will point it out, so it takes a little child to point out that the Emperor is naked. Guess what, the CAGW hypothesis is naked, too!

 

[2dye4]

racookpe

It is not really clear what you are trying to say.

1 The data could never be of any use to anybody for anything because it was gathered under ___ circumstances ??
2 The corrections made by researchers actually increased the error of the SST temp estimates.
3 The corrections indicated were 'designed' to increase error??
4 Would the raw uncorrected data be better??

Or is there something I missed?

Next

Does the inclusion of this historical measured water temp data invalidate all climate change theory??

 

[TGS4]

The corrections are dubious, and not based on any sound engineering or scientific basis. They are assumptions piled on assumptions, mostly unrelated to the actual data or how it was gathered.

In these cases, the raw data is preferred to the adulterated data. At best, such a proposed adjustment can be used to expand the error-bars of the original data.

Does the inclusion of this historical measured water temp data invalidate all climate change theory??

Well, if the water temperatures 50-100 years ago were comparable to today, then there is no warming, ergo no man-made warming, therefore no CAGW.

Kinda like how the air temperatures in the 1930's were warmer than today.

Kinda like how there hasn't been any statistical warming in the last 15-17 years (depending on the choice of data set).

 

[2dye4]

""The corrections are dubious, and not based on any sound engineering or scientific basis. They are assumptions piled on assumptions, mostly unrelated to the actual data or how it was gathered.""

Opinion only, prove it.

How has the expected SST estimate error been made worse using the 'corrections'.

Assuming historical accounts of the collection methods are valid can you show the estimation errors to be so large as to make the data useless.

Can you prove estimation errors were biased so that they average to a nonzero and significant estimate error.

No one has tackled these questions especially no one at wattsupwiththat. Where is the real counter analysis of the methods.

 

[TGS4]

You really are dense. You are so blinded by you devotion to your beliefs with a religious zeal, that you can't even comprehend what's being handed to you. When there is prima facia evidence of assumptions piled on assumptions (as racookepe1978 handed to you), you ask for "proof"? If I had any engineering report presented to me with that, I would laugh and garbage it. But, I guess when such a paper now forms a part of your religious texts, you fall prostrate before it.

I understand now, that you understand nothing of any of the science, and probably wouldn't, even if it smacked you upside the head.

I suppose that you think that extreme weather is caused by CO2 and man-made global warming, too?

Your emperor has no clothes. All I can do is point that out to you. You can accept that or deny it, but your concept of "proof" is a little mind-boggling.

 

[2dye4]

Tgs

Sorry but your unsupported opinions are not enough for me to change my mind.
I asked several necessary questions and you only insult.
The questions were basic and should not boggle an engineers mind.

I will bet a craft beer that you haven't looked at the papers where the assumptions were outlined to
see if there is credible support for them built up by real science.

You would much prefer the simpler route of indignation and 'belief' that there was bad science than to
take the time to look it up for yourself and post a single counter analysis explaining why a particular technique
( only one will do ) resulted in the estimation error growing instead of shrinking.

Nothing in racooks post was anything other than an opinion without support.

I really don't expect you to do this as it would be quite a bit of work, but you could withhold judgement
until someone does this analysis and makes a good case for it, and that is exactly my point.
If there was a 'there' there somebody would have done it. No credible research contradicting much of anything
WRT Climate Science.
Now why would that be ??

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
I've done that work and find the quote that RAcookpe1978 included above to be one of the more "scientific" references that I recall, some are much shakier. When you parse all the words in that quote you see that: [ol 1]
[li]The basic data came from a mercury thermometer read in bright sunlight on a moving surface. I've tried to do that and got an error bar wider than 0.5 C[/li]
[li]Most of the data points did not include wind velocity or ship's movement so the effect of wind on the evaporation component must be assumed to be a constant 4 m/s (about 8 mph). I've been to sea and found both the wind and the vessel speed relative to the wind to be anything but constant. This velocity makes a huge difference to the "natural evaporation" calculation. Far more than 0.5 C[/li]
[li]There are no records of how long the bucket was outside of the ocean before the thermometer was read. This is a case where the act of observing has a profound impact on the observed conditions[/li]
[li]The actual location fix was questionable so "little" things like the boundary between the Japanese Current or the Gulf Stream and the rest of the ocean (for example) or the impact of tidal flats and deltas gets kind of blurry.[/li]
[/ol]

I look at that data and ask "is this a dataset that can stand up to 20-30 million iteratations per time step?" The answer is a categorical "NO". Is it a set of data that is of adequate quality to allow "adjustments" to be made to make it "accurate". Oh my god, NO. This dataset is of a slightly lower value than a well-tuned random number generator. That is what we have "settled" the science on, and that is what we are writing laws on. Simple fields of dreck.

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"

 

[rb1957]

you guys are having too much fun, slagging off at one another !

FWIW, i think the science has become too politicalised (if that's a word). there is an answer required of the data and i believe that answer is rendered. i don't believe that the data is intentionally manulipated, i do suspect that "fudge factors" are played with untill the required answer is produced by the model.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TGS4]

Nothing in racooks post was anything other than an opinion without support.

Facepalm. It (his post @ 26 May 13 20:59) was a quote from the paper that MADE the adjustments. It is a statement of exactly WHAT they did. It was not an opinion on what the adjustments were based on, but the ACTUAL PAPER! What part of that do you not understand. Yes, I insulted you, because you were handed, on a silver platter, the "science", and somehow looked at it as an opinion.

I too, like David, have read the actual papers (where they are not paywalled) that this whole charade is based on. Based on my education and experience, I rendered a professional opinion on these - that many of them are not worth the paper that they are printed on. Based on the quotation that racookepe1978 posted above @ 26 May 13 20:59, do you think that these are appropriate assumptions, sufficient to modify a complete set of millions of data points, the exact locations of which, and experimental methodologies of which, are unknown? One question for you only.

 

[synapticfusion]

Why are there so many skeptics out there? Simple.

One simple action that would result in the reduction of a lot of misdirected investment (that stimulates a lot of unnecessary greenhouse emissions) which represented by fiat money inflation and interest rates not set by the time preference of someone saving (conserving) resources in order to make available the necessary capital for those investments is never considered by anyone in power. Monetary inflation results in the confiscation of resources and reallocation to those who are profligate and wasteful with those resources. I will know someone is serious about the problem and the solution once he seriously discusses fraudulent structure of the world economy and rectifying that as a possible solution. Consider that these same fraudsters are set to gain the most by the proposed "solutions", I have reason enough to believe that their is something amiss.

My suspicion is further raised when the debate takes on a religious fervor, with the "scientists" taking the place of the "priests" from medieval times in debates. I get the feeling in the end the guy with the gun will be used to gain my agreement and that somehow the powers that be do not really wish to convince me with the science. Consider that in Australia Carbon taxes was introduced together with a multitude of benefits bribes to the masses.

 

[hokie66]

That first sentence in the second paragraph is a doozy. But by the time I got to the end of your post, I understood.