It’s here!

Today on NOTALOTOFPEOPLEKNOWTHAT:

Fluffy and Fido are ruining the environment.  According to a study out of UCLA.

YES!  I predicted this months ago.  When the push to remove meat from our diets was revived, I kept noting that dogs and cats are huge consumers of meat—especially cats.  They have higher quality meat food than many humans.  So when are the enviros and global warming advocates going to say “Your pet goes vegetarian or your pet goes.  Keeping your meat-eating pet is evil and you’re a bad person for doing so”?  The day arrived.

Okay, the article doesn’t quite say that.  It does clearly imply this.  Worse, those fluffy critters are given 25 to 30% of the blame for meat consumption.  This makes Fido and Fluffy clear threats to the future of this planet.  You pet owners are so very selfish and uncaring out there.  Time to dump the pets and save the planet.  (Yes, we know you think Fido is a member of the family.  You can keep Fido until he dies, but NO MORE PETS if you care about the planet.)

It is possible you could have a hamster or guinea pig, something that does not eat meat.  However, keep in mind that there have been suggestions that eating such things as mice and rats could provide meat without the environmental impact.  Your pet could become some true believer’s next meal if things get dicey.  Best to just get a pet rock.  Those are much more environmentally friendly.

Lack of pets will give you all more time to sit and watch the latest Al Gore fiction and reflect on why saving the planet matters if life on the planet is so dreary and useless without pets, cars, planes and lights.

(See: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/dog-made-global-warming/ )

scan0077

The Latest Threat to the Planet

What if

What if Einstein and Heisenberg behaved as climate scientists do?

Einstein: Heisenberg, I see some possible flaws in your uncertainty principle.

Heisenberg: Excuse me. There are no flaws. 97% of physicists agree with my analysis.

E: But God does not throw dice.

H: There’s no god and those dice exist only because we observe them.

E: That seems a catch 22. How do we know the dice weren’t there if when we observe them, they magically appear?

H: You’ve been palling around with that idiot Schroedinger and his cat thing, haven’t you?

E: I think he may have a point.

H: No-he’s an idiot. Everyone knows that. He’s just being mean and obnoxious because he’s too stupid to understand my theory.

E: But he’s a physicist. So am I.

H: You don’t work in the field. You don’t publish. You’re all theory and no publishing.

E: What does that mean?

H: It means you are not an expert and you should learn to respect experts.

E: Seriously?

H: Yes, seriously. My calculations show specifically and certainly that particles do not exist until they are observed.

E: That makes no sense. Your calculations must be off.

H: Science denier! My calculations are absolutely accurate.

E: Can I see them?

H: NO! You’re a science denier. You’re just trying to ruin my theory because it explains more than yours.

E: I just want to check.

H: NEVER! My calculations have been checked by my peers and they agree with my conclusions.

E: Science is about verification.

H: You said my theory was a catch 22—not verifiable. You lose. I win. Now, nor more denier talk about God or dice. GOT IT?

 

I cant’ take it anymore……

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

How does a person decide what is good science?

In the comments section, there is a continuing demand for peer-reviewed articles to “prove” claims (some of which are not actual science claims, but rather reasoning and logic). Rather than continuing to answer in the comments section, I have decided to write a series of posts on how one can evaluate scientific claims. The criteria is not related to “peer-reviewed journal articles written” or other methods generally used by the climate change advocates.

Please be patient. There are other projects I have to complete, so the series may take a bit to produce.