Stop! Don’t let that horse through the gate!

Climate Progress had an article still quoting the 97% consensus in spite of repeated refutations and evidence of fraud in the studies.  This is interesting considering the rest of the article seems to try to play away from the consensus idea.  Perhaps they’re just confused?  Cook and Lewandowsky’s studies have been retracted and/or proven to have committed fraud, yet the study now addressed lists these two as authors, along with a few other familiar names (D. Nuccitelli, K. Hayhoe), all part of the Global Warming intimidation and bullying squad.  Later, you’ll see why this is extremely ironic.

For the study, it seems they used outliers from the skeptic side because it was easier.  This according to Climate Progress.  Interesting, using the outliers?  I guess then if skeptics are going to check out global warming scientists and their statements, boiling oceans and complete arctic ice melting would be the ideas to go with.  I’m not sure i can find a peer-reviewed paper to that effect, though it seems after reading this paper, the real scientists here are the authors of the paper and they are way smarter than any peer-review board.  How many years have global warming advocates screamed “peer-review” and now that peer-review has been shown to be problematic, they now create their own review group who is smarter and better than any magazine editor (Reminds me of Sheldon on the “Big Bang”—”My brain is better than everybody’s”).

The stated goal was “replication with a critical eye”.  Replication is NOT done with a critical eye.  It’s taking the exact same data, statistics and repeating what the researcher did to see if you get the same result.  What is describe in the paper is “peer-review by a panel of self-annointed experts”.  Replication apprear to have had a tiny part in the paper, if it was actually addressed at all.

We show how knowledge may progress through replication of 38 papers and how ignorance may be reduced for some controversies. In addition to the replication itself, the assessment of the papers should also involve an analysis of the logical reasoning. Wrong conclusions may result from incorrect logic for several reasons, here categorised from A-D: A. One may start from a correct logical premise and execute an erroneous analysis. B. One may apply a correct analysis but start from the wrong logical premise. C. One may start from the right premise, and correctly apply the analysis, but overstate the significance of the conclusions (the analysis does not actually address the question). D. One may start from wrong logical premise and apply erroneous analysis.

Again, NOT replication, but instead self-annointed peer-review.

Climate Progress says things did not go well for the contrarian papers.  Really???  Outlier theories were chosen and somehow failed the self-annointed peer-review?  If skeptics did this, it would be called CHERRY PICKING.

sign   Here’s your sign.

Funny, the article then actually accuse the skeptics of cherry picking.  I am beginning to wonder if there is any intelligence on the global warming side.  They cherry pick and then accuse skeptics of doing it.  Worse, they say it’s wrong when skeptics do this, but a-okay when global warming cherry picks.  Can’t we just bake pies with the cherries and actually address the data that was omitted and why it should or should not have been.  On ALL sides of the issue.  Because we clearly see from this paper that cherry-picking is a favorite of the global warming crowd.

sign  Here’s your sign.

The article mentions a 4000 year cycle that was the only period that the statistical analysis worked for.  I didn’t find any looks at global warming studies to see if these were also suffering from that same defect.  It was noted that global warming studies “may” be suffering from the same problems.  Seriously, shouldn’t that have been included in the paper?  IF the goal was to make science better, I’d think you’d want to give examples on both sides.  IF.

sign  Here’s your sign.

There were studies that reportedly ignored the laws of physics and some researchers included extra parameters not based on the laws of physics. The actual paper covers some of the reasons why these analyses were incorrect.  None was particularly convincing.  Keep in mind also that the outliers were chosen because these are easier to refute, so I was surprised there wasn’t more convincing refutation.  (I do have questions on some of the papers listed.  I also have questions on a large number of global warming papers.)  Again, if you cherry-pick your authors, I’m certain one can find examples of improper physics and statistics.  We already know that from global warming science.

Statistical abuse/misuse and wrong premises and conclusions seemed to be based on what is “known” in global warming. In other words, the paper failed if it disagreed with any part of the global warming meme.  One wonders how global warming statistics and premises are apparently self-evident (which makes me wonder why they bothered to do the study at all—No, I know exactly why they did the study—propaganda.  The mainstay of global warming so-called science.)

sign  Here’s your sign.

The article concludes that “reproducibility” is essential in science, irregardless of consensus (First, the authors need to learn what “reproducibility” is).  Again, this from two or three authors known to attempt to pummel people into going along with science NO MATTER WHAT.  They have called people “deniers”(but switched to “contrarian” because that so much nicer, right?), and done everything in their power to silence ALL opposition.  Forgive me if remain skeptical about motives and sincerity here.  A self-annointed peer-review panel trying to convince us they are open-minded, sincere and scientific.

Bar the gate.  That gift from the global warming advocates is a Trojan horse.

Advertisements

Bring on the psychics

“a) No it’s not and b) you can’t make projections from long term past data. If you want to simulate what the future will do you have to build a model.”
From the comment section of the Daily Mail

There’s many insults about how skeptics don’t understand climate science. Here we have guy that apparently thinks you contact a psychic and get a model for climate change. Why a psychic? Well, you can’t make projections from long-term past data (I thought long-term made prediction easier. That’s why weather forecasts are hit and miss but climate science is gospel and absolutely true) and you can’t use short-term data (try mentioning the leveling of temperatures over the last 20 years and there will be no doubt of this). So we can’t use long-term data and we can’t use short-term data which means we can’t use data at all. That only leaves a psychic. A model might be able to be created using no data, though every time a skeptic suggests it, they are shredded for the notion, but such a method is really questionable, certainly not verifiable and not science. We see here a global warming advocate arguing that there is no science in global warming and believing it helps his argument. It does if you’re on the skeptic side.

Another story has come up about polar bears facing extinction in 10 years. Again, the climate crew must be employing a psychic for these prediction. Real polar bear scientists and those living in the North all say polar bears are doing fine–increasing in number actually. However, it seems those computer models say polar bears are going to be wiped out if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. Truly, I think we should start substituting “psychic” for “computer model” since the models bear no resemblance to reality in any way. Predictions have been consistently wrong for decades. Psychics can get by with a record like that, but science cannot. If the predictions fail over and over, the model is wrong. It is not reality that is wrong, as the global warming advocates would have you believe.

Did someone request a psychic?

Did someone request a psychic?

Meanderings

It’s not climate change causing fires

Alaska is burning and it’s due to global warming. No, wait, that’s impossible. One cannot attribute any single event to warming. What one can do is declare they are a scientist, then make psychic predictions about future fires. That makes the predictions scientific. Yes, Alaska is burning. It’s dry and hot and it happens. It happens more frequently where people live and recreate. So my psychic prediction is if we made everyone live in a tiny area, fires would decrease dramatically. Except for the ones caused by lightening, which would increase in size dramatically with no one around to put them out.  Note: do not check on historical fire data. Your belief in global warming could be affected.  Huge fires occurred long before the industrial revolution.

Foray into fiction here

I was reading a blog that mentioned “Waterworld” and the poles melting. (To be honest, I had to check on that. The movie was so bad I didn’t remember why it was the world was flooded.) “Waterworld” was science fiction. Does anyone remember the meaning of the word “fiction”? It seems the news has become fiction, too, so maybe soon we’ll see “MediaApocalypse” where all members of the media are eaten by creatures that crawled out of the not-so-dying-ocean and were angered that humans were thinking they were so big and powerful they controlled the weather. We could have Bill Nye eaten early on, along with Michael Mann and all the network news anchors. After that, the film pretty much ends as people go back to their daily lives and stop hiding under tables waiting for the end. Not as messy as a zombie apocalypse, but there’s no good way to naturally produce a zombie.

Wow, it gets get more and more out in left field

Under the “Unbelievably Stupid Waste of Time and Money” comes this from the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3133317/Scientists-creating-eco-cows-try-reduce-greenhouse-gases-generated-herds.html
If you are paying the slightest bit of attention (okay, there went half the audience….), when it’s brought up that people breathe out CO2, it is immediately, loudly and rudely pointed out that ONLY fossil fuels cause this problem. The cows are eating grass and then releasing the CO2 as part of the carbon cycle that is natural. One might argue that a TINY percentage of CO2 is added to the air, but only a scientifically illiterate person claims cattle add to the problem. Yet, here we are with money wasted trying to decrease cattle flatulence while telling people that breathing out CO2 doesn’t change anything. A scientific theory?  Unlikely with this kind of commentary.  Black is white and white is black.

It’s not to save the planet, it’s to kill capitalism

EPA proposes tougher fuel-efficiency standards for trucks from “The Washington post”. This headline should read “EPA proposes to further collapse the economy in the name of saving the planet”. It is obvious this is not about people and their having good lives, but rather pushing everyone into poverty and/or government assistance. This is the perfect way to create lay-offs, shut down businesses, etc all of which are exactly what the EPA wants (and possibly the Pope, since closing businesses and laying people off cuts into that crass commercialism his encyclical is decrying). Try not to think about the reality that developed nations do far less environmental damage than the poverty filled nations. Fossil fuels allow people to not cut wood for heat, not burn dung for cooking, not clear cut in the hopes of growing more food and not starving, etc. Why would anyone want to have people starving, polluting the air with filthy fuels and clear cutting forests to survive? Maybe the Washington post could run an article explaining this.

(Moderation of comments may be slow as I will be away from the computer for a couple days.  Apologies in advance.)

Not that Certain

A new paper (A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes–Kokic, Crimp, Howden) states a 99.999% certainty humans are causing the warming on the planet, IF the model contains all factors with significant (ie measurable and large enough to affect the outcome) influence on climate.

The model only has four factors: CO2 (GHG as measured by Kyoto Protocol), ENSO, TSI, and volcanoes. It’s highly unlikely that there are not more factors–for example oceans storing heat, albedo of arctic and antarctic ice, back radiation, convection currents, etc, just to name a few I have read about on various sites. If any of these have a large effect, the model does not match reality and any outcome or prediction may be useful by chance but most probably useless other than to grab headlines.

Also, if the measurements of any of the factors is not accurate, the conclusion is void. That does not mean the conclusion is not true–it means the models and statistics used to create the model and certainty are invalid. In other words, the model is back to an unproven hypothesis. It is possible for an incomplete model might be useful in some ways, but the 99.999% certainty is most certainly exaggerated and should be scrapped. A four factor model of climate that shows this kind of “certainty” is very unlikely to be accurate or even useful.

The modeler’s use a bootstrap calculation, something that seems to be used more and more in the studies I have been reading. In theory, the bootstrap yields multiple data sets to increase the likelihood that the model cover all data. (Correct me if my explanation of this is poorly stated. I am sometimes not very good at explaining statistics so it makes sense to readers.) They ran the bootstrap 100,000 times both leaving in and leaving out GHG. From this, they reached the incredible (or perhaps not-so-credible) 99.999% number.

There is no information on whether or not the model was run eliminating other factors one at a time in the same fashion as GHG. This is vital to gauge whether something else may have just as strong an effect.

The model B also indicated only an approximate 25% of 304 months of continuous record breaking temperatures, but that was one of the original questions in the model–how likely are 304 months of record breaking temperatures without human influence? That would seem to indicate the model missed the mark. Model E also showed only about a 53% chance of this temperature streak happening. Why can’t the model reproduce the 304 months of record setting temperatures? With 99.999 % certainty, one would expect nothing less.

An interesting thing that did show up in the study was the prediction of periods of flat or colling temperatures and the number of periods of cooling was closer to observed in the runs with GHG left in than those without. The number was still not matching actual recoded data but was closer with GHG.

What does this tell us about humans, GHG and certainty? IF the models are sufficiently accurate, there could be a strong case for humans causing warming. However, the small number of variable in the model call into question whether all significant factors have been included. Without a 99.999% certainty that these are the only factors needed the conclusion is not valid. If any measurements of input variables are even slightly off, the conclusion does not hold.

All in all, the study, while it addressed some interesting points fell far short of being definitive proof of humans causing climate change. The certainty is far over stated when one compares reality to the model and its conclusions.

As I have been saying

Today I found this:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-models-cannot.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/climate-models-cannot-explain-why-global-warming-has-slowed/#more-29963

Undoubtedly, it appears on many more blogs. The test of a theory is whether or not the evidence fits the theory. AGW is based on models that predict warming–which is not occurring in reality. Advocates may try to claim that the heat went into the oceans, but the models did not predict that starting in the late 1990’s the heat storage would shift to the oceans. Clearly the models cannot accurately predict and since the theory is based on the models, the entire theory is in need of a thorough reworking.

In addition, the models for the melting of Arctic Ice have made predictions that are virtually worthless. In this case, the models showed the melting far into the future, not now. Again, bad model, bad theory.

A true scientist, when confronted with this failure, would set about finding where the errors are and revising the theory. Should we take bets on whether or not AGW advocates publicly admit the failure and rethink the theory, looking for where the errors are, or if they return to name-calling, shrill cries of “Big Oil Conspiracy”, etc? Odds are very, very high the real science route will not be followed.

Get ready for mudslinging and desperate attempts to cover up the failure in the science. It’s going to get ugly.

 Scientific Badger


Scientific Badger

Problem premises, misplaced blame

I was reading a paper by Hansen et al and found the term “known planetary energy imbalance”. This has always been an interesting term to me. It presupposes that:
(A) Balance is supposed to exist.
(B) We know every factor in the energy mix and it’s contribution to the overall balance

Without verification of these two premises, any conclusions that arise from these premises are not logically true. The conclusion may be true, but the arguments used to “prove” them do not lead to the conclusion and do not serve to verify the conclusion.

(A) How do we know a “balance” ever existed? Humans love balance, that I understand. Mathematical equations have to balance as a matter of definition. Then there are the laws of thermodynamics. Mathematically, we want all the parts to add up—same amount of energy in as out. Right now, the earth is absorbing more energy than it is releasing back into space. The energy is going into the oceans. This is interpreted to mean something is “wrong” and must be fixed.

The need for balance is seen in the use of the global mean temperature (a statistic that reduces thousands of readings to one easy number). Any variation from this temperature is an anomaly. If even the smallest change occurs, it has enormous implications. Should one point out that the temperature of the Earth has always varied, the shrill response is: “Not this much”! Everything must balance and thus must remain stable.

If there is an imbalance and the global mean temperature is going up, we must “fix” it. Fix it to what? The pre-industrial era? Was it in balance then? What about the warming after the LIA? Did that indicate a return to balance or a falling out of balance? Snowball earth—definitely out of balance? What about when snowball earth started to melt? The balance was definitely not present then. So what period in time was the energy in/energy out in balance? Why did it stop being in balance? Was it ever really in balance or are we looking at a system that works without the balance we demand and that system’s imbalance results in what we call “climate”? Is it the imbalance that is the “correct” state?

Hansen is now saying “natural” climate is holding the CO2 in check—El Nino, La Nina, and solar output. However , he continues to claim CO2 from humans is the “predominant forcing”. The 5 year mean (running average) has been flat for a decade, while CO2 continues to rise. I garden. The predominant factor in successful gardening is water. We have had 12 years of drought. For a while, my irrigation watering, fertilizing, etc produced some results. However, year after year, the crop became smaller and smaller. My ability to get enough water through sprinklers was limited by the drought, also. This year, my garden is ¼ the area of the past. This year, rain has been falling. The amount of produce from the smaller area is exceeding the yield from last year’s large area. Nothing I did could overcome the lack of rain. Rain is the predominant factor. It seems problematic that a factor so huge and planet-threatening as human-produced CO2 could be knocked down by natural factors. The claim that warming will return is still clung to, however. Nature will fail to retain it’s current domination and CO2 will again reign. In my case, I know the rain was the dominant factor because when it returned, so did the garden. Until now, that was nothing more than an hypothesis. Just as “the warming will return” is nothing more than an hypothesis until the warming does return. Even then, there is the serious question of how a climate driver the size of human-induced CO2 could be overwhelmed by any natural process.

Hansen’s theory also presumes there exists a dominant driver of climate and that it will remain dominant except for brief periods. It is equally possible, and may be probable, that there exists no single factor or single group of factors that rule climate. Many factors may rise to dominance for periods of time, then are overpowered by others. In other words, there are multiple drivers that move up and down in their level of influence.

(B)We know every factor in the balance and it’s part/percentage in the balance. This is obviously false. Until the temperatures “flattened”, natural forces were said to be completely overwhelmed by CO2—that CO2 is the driving factor. If we did know everything there is to know about climate, we would have realized that nature might be a very large part of climate changing and that our contribution was not large enough to rule the climate kingdom continually. Climate scientists would have been telling us that CO2 was one factor but there were many others, and that their current understanding was that CO2 was the major driver at the moment (plus forcings, of course). They would have clearly stated that leveling off was possible and that nature could prevail for at least short periods. This was not found in the narrative until the temperatures flattened and there arose questions about why the warming of the atmosphere had stopped or slowed. As far as I know, it is not found in the research papers either. The narrative and research say warming is primarily due to CO2. It is the questioners who suggest otherwise.

Climate scientists bemoan the fact that people do not believe or trust them. Statements are made to the effect that Fox News is having more influence over people’s beliefs than the scientists themselves. Fox News is spreading an anti-science message and damaging the climate scientists standing.

That is NOT the problem. This sudden “nature is stronger at the moment but we assure you it will get continue to get hot just like we said it would” is clearly viewed as a CYA statement. When scientists predict warming for years and then circle the wagons and put out CYA statements when the warming flattens, they look just like politicians. People don’t trust politicians—the same happens when scientists start to act like politicians: Distrust.

Problem premises and CYA tactics are why people distrust climate science. Try clearly stating the premise and backing it up with solid evidence, not a “trust me” from the people promoting the theory. Of course, you will need a theory that actually can be verified. When models fail, the theory fails. When the theory cannot account for changes in what warms and how much, the theory fails. It is this failure that is the problem. Pure and simple.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

Again with the marketing

There is a new study by John Cook, et al., at IOP science “quantifying consensus” in scientific literature. He concludes there is the usual 97% consensus is found in the abstracts. How does he reach this conclusion?

First, he searched the ISI Web of Science for articles from 1997 to 2007 using the terms “global warming” or “global climate change”. Then the abstracts were divided into type of research and degree of endorsement for climate change.

The first question that arises is “If there was no endorsement of climate change” as in the cause of global warming was not addressed, why did the abstract show up in the search? It seems unlikely that researchers are padding their abstracts with the words “global warming” to move up in the search engines. The term “global climate change” could involve something other than human-caused warming, but why insert the term at all if the research shows, say, solar flares correlate to warming (just a made-up example)? Would this not also indicate disagreement with ACC, rather than no position? The whole selection process is highly questionable.

Add to that the term “citizen science”, which was used to describe this project, and one is left with a marketing survey. This says nothing about the truth of lack thereof in the research.

Let’s look at this in more detail:

The same type of survey could be done over the net looking at people’s perceptions of psychics. The public perception of psychics is important in maintaining the position of psychics in society. The survey can ask:

Do you believe psychics are real?

Do you believe psychic predictions are accurate?

Do you believe more attention should be paid to psychics?

Then suppose the results show:

30% of people say psychics are real, 60% have no opinion, 10 % say psychics are not real

of the 30% who believe the psychics are real, 95% believe the predictions are accurate

of the 30% who believe the psychics are real, 90% think more attention should be paid to psychics

Conclusion: 95% of people who believe psychic are real believe their predictions are accurate and nearly that many believe more attention should be paid to psychics

Does this mean that psychics are real and accurate? Of course not—it just shows that a certain percentage of the population has this belief and of that percentage, a very large percent believe psychics to be accurate and useful.

The same is true of the Cook “study”–it just shows there is a perception of climate change researchers who address that consensus exists. It says NOTHING about the science itself—nothing.

One last observation for now: There is an argument made that less study is done on ACC because it’s settled science—i.e., there’s no reason to study it much anymore. So what are all the research studies on? Natural climate change? The degree of climate change (which means there IS agreement with the consensus in those studies, they are not neutral)? How did 66% of the papers fail to take a position? If they are studying the degree of climate change without attributing it to anything, why the research?

This is another attempt to give validity to “voting for the right answer” in science. Using a “settled science” to prove science is settled. It’s just bad science all the way.