Good Science!
By Mitch Berg
If I remember anything from my half-semester as a biology major about the scientific method, it’s this: as long as you have plenty of explanations for why your data utterly fails to support your theory, you’re still in the game!
No, really!
September 16th, 2014 at 9:50 am
Actually, that’s true to some extent. Newton came up with a theory of gravity that mostly worked, until you started to look closely at things like Mercury’s orbit, and at that point they have to come up with a much more complicated theory that fixed up Newton’s. That didn’t mean that Newton was wrong, just that his theory was too simplified.
In theory, the basic global warming/climate change/nom-du-jour could be right and just not be correctly accounting for all the variability. That would make it a valid scientific theory, it just might be missing some necessary interactions that would fine tune its output.
The problem I see is two-fold. First, the system the “climate scientists” are trying to model is massively complicated, chaotic, and has an incredibly low signal to noise ratio. This requires more knowledge of the interactions of the various parts than we presently have. The climate scientists are deluding themselves as to the extent of their knowledge and the reliability of their data. Second, the scientists who are pushing this are computer illiterates and their models and methods suck. I wouldn’t trust them to write computer models to design a car, so why would I trust them to form the basis to reworking the economy?
September 16th, 2014 at 2:11 pm
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/august-2014-hottest-history-20140915
We just had the hottest August is recorded history.
September 16th, 2014 at 2:30 pm
RickDFL paraphrased:
“hottest August eva”
and RickDFL linked:
‘The difference however is very small compared with previous Augusts, said NASA-GISS Director Dr. Gavin Schmidt in an email interview with weather.com, adding that August 2014 “is basically in a statistical tie” with 2011, 2008, 2006 and 2003.
“Different analyses will likely give a different ranking among these,” he added. “The key issue for climate are the long-term trends, not individual months.”‘
So you only read the headline? Great.
September 16th, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Troy: You are correct. Thanks for adding to my point. Five of the last 14 Augusts are statistically tied for the hottest August in recorded history. Almost like something is heating up the earth over time.
September 16th, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Rick’s comment reminds me of my wife trying to explain why it makes sense to buy lottery tickets.
“Hot Lotto ticket worth record $11.71M sold in Twin Cities” http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/274259771.html
As Nerd notes, theoretically, it might come true. In theory.
To quote something MBerg secretly likes yet is supposed to hate:
“Don’t stop belieeeevin’. Hold on to that feeeelinnnn”
September 16th, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Re Nerdbert’s comment, it’s worth noting that there are a couple of crucial differences between the adjustment of the theory of gravitation (or Newton’s laws of motion for that matter). First of all, Newton’s theories are actually substantially changed–I don’t see that for the climate change hypothesis. Second, scientists actually provided data that prove the quantum changes in Newton’s laws of motion and gravity. Third, there is one set of changes in Newton’s laws, not 52.
My rule of thumb is that akin to pointing out that the man who says he is humble is most likely proud, and the man who makes a big stink about being “authentic” is most likely an atrocious fake. Specifically, when scientists start talking about “consensus”, what that really means is not that there is a scientific consensus, but rather that there isn’t, and what is really going on is that the scientists involved are trying to hide that fact with good PR.
There may indeed by real, man-made climate change, but judging by the behavior of those doing the research and meeting with the IPCC, you would have to assume the opposite.
And to help RickDFL out a bit, the August data, even if it were statistically significant, does not help support the hypothesis. It simply is not long term statistical data. And when we put it into its proper context, it suggests to us that, contrary to the IPCC hypothesis, the earth has not seen significant warming in nearly two decades.
And amazingly, nobody appears to be tweaking the hypothesis. Where is the Stephen Jay Gould who will come up with a theory of “punctuated equilibrium” to rescue climatology from a well deserved ignominy?
September 16th, 2014 at 3:11 pm
RickDFL: climate scientist.
RickDFL: statistician.
DFL “science”: using data you don’t understand to reach a predetermined conclusion that promotes your political goals.
September 16th, 2014 at 3:28 pm
BB: “It simply is not long term statistical data”. Guilty, but the snarky cheap shot was irresistible. In penance, here is the long-term statistical data on recorded temperatures. Anyway you cut it, a 100 year warming trend.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
September 16th, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Rick, are you referring to the fact that for the past two decades or so, NASA data shows no warming, despite the highest ever carbon dioxide emissions? And do they have an idea why the trend is so much cleaner in the southern hemisphere than in the northern–especially when most emissions are in the northern hemisphere?
Got it. Sorry. You’ve got some major problems with the theory, and the sooner your admit it, the better.
September 16th, 2014 at 4:39 pm
BB: Yes, the last twenty years are a sustained plateau of the highest temperatures ever. Unlike previous bursts of warming, there is no cooling phase this time.
If you can look at that graph and not see a 100 year warming trend there is no help for you and little for our species.
September 16th, 2014 at 4:45 pm
Why does the data on your chart start at 1880, RickDFL?
That the kind of question a scientist (or an intelligent layman) would ask.
You didn’t ask the question. You are not a scientist or an intelligent layman. I suspect that you know about as little about climate science as you do about the keynesian economic theory you say support. That is, you pick and choose based what you believe based on political considerations.
September 16th, 2014 at 5:03 pm
1880? Because that is when we started to have a reliable global network of temperature data. Before that we have to use different methods to determine global temperature.
What do you think the data before 1880 would show?
September 16th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Rick, nobody denies that the temperatures have risen. The question is why.
Powhatan also raises an interesting question; why start at 1880? There are two answers. First is that the Weather Bureau, predecessor of the Weather Service, was started in 1870, and by 1880, you’ve got plausible data. Second, and more important here, is that 1880 was the depths of the little ice age, and 1888 featured the explosion of Krakatoa, which depressed global temperatures.
And we would expect that after that, temperatures would rise on their own. It’s worth noting that prior to WWII, when emissions were far lower than today, temperature was rising as quickly as from 1980 and 2000. And then from 1940 to about 1980, there was a plateau.
According to Rick, that plateau indicates that we are warming the planet. So does an increase in temperatures. So does the late 1940s drop in temperatures.
In other words, according to him, the hypothesis cannot be refuted. Thus it is pseudo-science and cannot be proven. Now if only we could get all that money back we’ve been spending on “research”.
September 16th, 2014 at 5:09 pm
I am not claiming anything, RickDFL. You are. Your data sets seem to full of holes. You might start by looking at hundred year averages before 1880.
September 16th, 2014 at 5:18 pm
Hey, RickDFL, what do you think the IPCC’s 4th report states is the likelihood that human activity is responsible for their predicted increase in global temps for the next two decades?
Surely you know that. Wouldn’t make sense to open your mouth otherwise.
September 16th, 2014 at 6:04 pm
BB: Yes. A sustained period of the highest temperatures ever recorded is consistent with my theory. Your theory that we were simply reverting back to average after a cool period is inconsistent with a sustained 100 year sustained period of generally increasing temperatures.
September 16th, 2014 at 6:36 pm
“A sustained period of the highest temperature ever recorded.” As said above, “ever” in this case only means 1880 or so. So we have a “record” since 1880, as if the billions of years before that are meaningless to the equation. Sorry, but 135 years of data out of 4 billion doesn’t make a trend. Someone else alluded to it above, but the fact that it (may) be warming proves absolutely nothing as to why it’s warming. Which is the whole idea, right? And then there’s the fact of no warming globally for the last 17 years, all opposite of the alarmists ‘predictions.”. I see above you mention “generally increasing temperatures”. Sorry, can’t get away with that, either. The alarmists told us that the CO2- temperature relation was linear. CO2 goes up, temps go up- but that’s not happening. Finally, I can direct you to sites that show the constant adjusting of temperatures that NOAA has been doing for years now. They cool the past and warm the present.
September 16th, 2014 at 7:47 pm
The record indicated by paleoclimatology is interesting. Wild swings of up to 10 C with no human cause. Dryas event, younger dryas event, etc. The three times in the holocene when the Sahara bloomed despite increasing human use of of the land for grazing . . .
Being consistent with a theory is meaningless, other than as a guide to further hypothesis, observation, and experimentation.
And I guess RickDFL still hasn’t figured out that the authors of IPCC report #4 are not nearly as certain that AGW exists as he is. Or he has just looked it up. Or he is afraid to say so.
The predicted global temperature increase is supposed to be 0.76 C per decade for the next two decades. 90% likely to have been caused by man. If it increases 0.76 C per decade.
When Pinatubo erupted in the early ’90s it lowered global temps by 0.4 C for a few years.
September 17th, 2014 at 7:35 am
Back when cold-blooded thunder lizards lived in North Dakota on the shores of the giant lake that was Minnesota, the climate was warmer, enough so that the lake didn’t freeze and the dinosaurs didn’t die.
Things are just now getting back to Normal. Democrats hate normal.
.
September 17th, 2014 at 8:05 am
August 3,4,5 1863 were unusually warm in Gettysburg. Humans were dumping tons of carbon into the air.
The civil war caused glerbal werming!
September 17th, 2014 at 8:20 am
Paleoclimatology is really weird. Until the pleistocene there weren’t ice ages. The world’s temp was 10-15 deg. C warmer than now, with a dimmer sun and with global vtemps completely insensitive to CO2 levels. In the jurassic, land masses above the arctic circle had climates like the Pacific NW. Geology textbooks are not unfriendly to the notion of AGW, and endorse the idea that the world has been in an intermittent warming trend for thousands of years, and that this trend has accelerated recently. They also explain in no uncertain terms that a provable, causal link between that trend and human activity is unproven.
The source of the 1970s scientific “fact” that a new ice age was upon us was based on the so-called “Marenkovich cycles”. These were correlations between the fossil temperature record and harmonics in the ellipticity, precession, and nutation in the Earth’s orbit about the sun .. . hmm . . . corellation == causation == “it fits the model.”
September 17th, 2014 at 10:12 am
Rick: there are a couple of things wrong with your assumptions. First, the data for previous years is not the raw data. NASA gave up on using the raw data long ago and has been using “adjusted” and “corrected” data for years. The problem that I see is that the data now used has had a consistent (and ever increasing) bias to lower temperatures in the past as part of the “correction”. If you use the raw data, this last August would rank #3 or so, with the first two finishers being actually back in the 30s. As a reformed physicist, you might understand why I’m extremely skeptical of any experiment that gives you the desired result only when you massage your data. Heck, I’m skeptical of any experiment where the base data are adjusted no matter the field.
And all this is of data to which we have direct access, and in many cases access to the actual instruments that made the measurements. The paleoclimatology reconstructions depend on some very indirect measurements and necessarily come with some very large error bars, not to mention being inconsistent and very dependent on extremely small sample sizes.
In sum, I have a great deal of suspicion on the underlying data used to generate even the recent claims of warming, much less to accept the longer term claims made by AGW proponents.
September 17th, 2014 at 10:42 am
The last 15 years are an epicycle of a Marenkovich cycle. The climate is not actually cooling, it’s experiencing retrograde calefaction.
Hey, it worked for Ptolemy and he’s a lot smarter than your average Democrat. Should be no problem selling this explanation to Minnesotans.
.
September 17th, 2014 at 10:56 am
That the kind of question a scientist (or an intelligent layman) would ask
Oh boy, here we go again. Don’t forget folks, you are arguing with an idiot who does not know what +/- is. Right RinkyDink? You had your sorry ass handed to you last time, walk away while you still have whatever ass grew back. But you are not smart enough to do that – you are proving it again.
September 17th, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Rick, no, a sustained period of high temperatures with no observable increase is NOT consistent with your theory, which holds that the dominant factor in global temperature changes is not that yellow ball in the sky, but rather human greenhouse gas emissions.
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to let you get away with that sleight of hand. If indeed the IPCC models were correct, we would observe some significant warming over the past two decades. Obviously the system is a lot more complicated than climatologists know.
And for reference, I’m all for doing things efficiently and reducing emissions. Have a tonnage tax on fossil fuels with a 100% cut in funding for the Department of Energy and climatology research, along with a big income tax cut, and we’re talking.
I just don’t believe that the same governmental systems that gave us horrific environmental issues in the former Warsaw Pact nations–and are still giving us horrific environmental issues in China and such–are the way to prevent an ecological disaster. And since the “researchers” are almost monolithically endorsing more socialism as a solution, instead of noting it as the problem, I’ve got to wonder whether their scientific judgment is as “good” as their political judgment.
Enter the current plateau in global temperatures, and the answer is clearly “yes.”
September 17th, 2014 at 1:41 pm
BB. “Obviously the system is a lot more complicated than climatologists know.” This thread started by proposing that climate scientists must be wrong because they invoked too many causal agents to explain global temperature. Now you and others propose that climate scientists must be wrong because they can only recognize one causal agent and must be committed to a “linear” causal relation between CO2 and global temperature. Those two things can’t both be true.
September 17th, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Rick, wrong again. First of all, I did not limit causal factors, but if indeed the plateau is the result of human emissions and not natural causes, then we would have to assume that the dominant cause (not the only) is human emissions. And then we run smack-dab into the models, which say that if indeed human emissions plays a dominant role, we ought to expect an increase.
So my apologies, but it is your side of the argument that is running into logical difficulties. And the start of this discussion was not about the number of causal factors, but rather that we have something like 52 explanations for why the data and models don’t match, but nobody is taking a step back from the models and saying “why don’t we postpone judgment until we have a couple of models that work reasonably well?”
September 17th, 2014 at 4:24 pm
BB: “if indeed the plateau is the result of human emissions and not natural causes”
But that is not true. Any given temperature is the product of multiple factors both human and natural. A plateau is consistent with higher CO2 causing higher temperatures while other factors cause lower temperatures, which balance out over a period.
“we would have to assume that the dominant cause (not the only) is human emissions” But just because CO2 is the dominant cause of the 100+ run up in average temp, does not mean it is the dominant cause in every short term change in temperature. It still gets colder at night. Or if the Sun suddenly dimmed and temperatures got ice age cold, it would not change the fact that temps were higher than they would have been b/c of CO2 levels.
“And the start of this discussion was not about the number of causal factors, but rather that we have something like 52 explanations for why the data and models don’t match” But you are just restating the same thing. The 52 explanations are each additional causal factors to add into a model.
September 17th, 2014 at 5:13 pm
Sigh… All this drivel coming from a person not educated enough to know what +/- is. But he gotta stick to them talking points, ’cause that’s all he’s got.
September 17th, 2014 at 5:41 pm
Rick, if indeed we have 52 factors that are not adequately modeled, maybe, just maybe, we spend some time evaluating the models and get one that, you know, kinda-sorta works before we suffer trillions in economic losses by implementing things like the Kyoto Protocol?
And maybe, just maybe, given the level of deception and outright fraud that is seen in the researchers–WattsUpWithThat and so on–maybe we do a thorough cleaning of the funded researchers and THEN, and only then, go forward with more funding?
And finally, maybe, just maybe, we take the researchers that are left (all 23 of them?) to Lake Baikal and Shanghai and let them know that this is what the environment looks like in a command economy? And then maybe we’ll get some decent recommendations that reflect sound economics?
September 17th, 2014 at 6:40 pm
RickDFL is plainly wrong. The Hockey Stick graph is settled law. Temperatures are skyrocketing. They must be, the science predicted them and the science is never wrong. Who you gonna believe: the scientists or your lying thermometer?
.
September 17th, 2014 at 7:03 pm
BB: The refinements in the models of global temperature and our understanding of different causal factors are just like any other elaboration of any good scientific theory. So in the end it is not the science, it is just the (alleged) political consequences to which you object.
Joe. If 5 of the last 14 years being the hottest in recorded history don’t count as “temperatures are skyrocketing”, I am not sure what would. But if you’ll settle for temperatures have skyrocketed and are very likely to continue skyrocketing, go for it.
I am sure all of this will be great comfort to your children as they man the I-90 border fence to keep out the roving hoards of Texans and Okies trying to migrate North.
September 18th, 2014 at 7:18 am
Not years; Augusts. Not children; great, great, grand-children, if the models are even correct. And we don’t man Southern borders in this country, we let in immigrants by the trainload, you hateful racisss.
Global warming is not a crisis now and is not going to be one for a long, long time, if ever. Scare tactics to grab political power are risable.
And yes, I would prefer the globe to average about 2 degrees warmer. Milder winters use less natural gas to heat homes, producing less carbon and reducing pollution. Longer growing season for better harvests. Easier to grow fresh fruits and vegetables here. Less artic ice means more tillable land and more usable fresh water. For every gloom-and-doom possibility you assert, there’s an alternate positive possibility I prefer.
.
September 18th, 2014 at 4:28 pm
But, Joe, that does not fit the narrative, therefore Rinky+/-Dink has to object. It’s the law in the dumbocrat land.
September 19th, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Rick, these are not “refinements” in the scientific theory. More or less, what is going on is that the so-called “researchers” are selling fertilizer, banding together to prevent the real data from getting out, and then finally letting things go (like the infamous hockey stick) only when the data are too clear to deny by anyone who has passed middle school science.
I’m sorry, but other areas of science did not suffer this. You will not find similar levels of fraud and politics in electromagnetics, for example. The only thing I can think of in legitimate science that even comes close was a certain national socialist corporal’s attempt to deride quantum mechanics as “Jewish” science. Thankfully, a few lads and lassies in Los Alamos didn’t take him seriously.