Climate science is in its infancy, and every proposition is controversial. What climate scientists like those at East Anglia don’t know dwarfs what they do know. They can produce a model for every occasion, but are the models any good? If so, which one? One thing we know for sure is that they don’t generate reliable predictions. In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved. When it comes to global warming, however, there is no such thing as falsification. Which is the ultimate evidence that the alarmist scientists are engaged in a political enterprise, not a scientific one.”
- Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That
UPDATE 1: There’s “a very disturbing HARRY_READ_ME.txt file” (to use Steve McIntyre’s words) included as part of the Climate Research Unit document hack that gives a clue how the alleged scientists at CRU handle “their” data – that is to say, the very data on which the worlds’ governments are basing their various schemes to shackle industry. A reader at Soylent Green comments on the Harry_Read_Me File and what it shows:
“They fudged so much that NOTHING that came out of CRU can have ANY believability. If the word can be gotten out on this and understood it is the end of the global warming myth. This much bigger than the e-mails. For techie takes on this see:
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
“To base a re-making of the global economy (i.e. cap-and-trade)on disastrously and hopelessly messed up data like this would be insanity.”
Read here and here, and weep for the corruption of science.
UPDATE 2:
- slightly amended, from Francisco Capella’s article
‘The Ethics of Freedom and Climate Change’
57 comments:
When it comes to global warming, however, there is no such thing as falsification.
That is the real rub - if these folk were genuinely concerned about the environment evidence that global warming was not taking place would be met with enthusiastic sighs of relief. The fact that any alternative to the climate change orthodoxy is met instead with shrieking demands for censure and censorship shows that there has to be another motivation.
During his last years, the late Aaron Wildavsky, then Dean of the School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, became more and more interested in the role of group 'culture' in shaping social behaviour. One of his observations was that the more the individual is incorporated into bonded unit, the more individual choice is subject to group determination.
Aaron was generally regarded as 'the father of Public Policy' and in this group of books and papers he was challenging the 'rational man' model of decision-making. He was not denying the importance of reason and scientific method, but was emphasising that human behaviour is also modified by strongly held beliefs and traditions, and in particular, by group loyalties.
I suspect if Aaron was still alive he would be setting a bunch of his graduate students onto this episode of the leaked Climate Research Unit emails as a textbook example of how a 'culture of group belief' can impact on the behaviour of the supposedly rational and impartial people who are presumed to occupy the scientific community.
These emails may be an early demonstration of one of the downsides of the internet, and of email in particular.
The rapid and prolific communication enabled by email certainly promotes the free and widespread sharing of information and knowhow.
But the same ease of communication may well promote the development of inward-looking and intolerant tribal cultures that can seriously undermine the established disciplines and traditions of the scientific method.
Scientists have always been passionate about their theories. Dawkins, Teller, Feynman, Pinker, Gould and Gliek are hardly famous for their lack of commitment to their beleifs.
But prior to the internet such scientists have tended to be passionate individuals working at their desks within their own studies, and sharing their ideas with suitably sceptical colleagues and graduate students.
Fifteen years ago I presented a paper to the Quest organisation's 1995 AGM in Florida, on how the internet would promote Tribal Marketing.
The release of the CRU emails suggests suggest that sadly the internet has promoted the development of Tribal Science.
Certainly the key players, as revealed in this collection of leaked emails, have been behaving like members of a fervent and passionate tribe – defending their territory, shaping evidence to support their beliefs and waging war on outsiders.
Wildavsky would be the first to point out that there is no need to call on conspiracy theory, or financial incentives, to explain this tribal behaviour; just the power of the culture of the group.
The CRU team and their internet colleagues had taken on the intolerant behaviour and intemperate language of the fervent tribes that build up around extremist blogs on the Internet.
"They can produce a model for every occasion, but are the models any good?"
As a retired professor of physics recently pointed out in a letter to the EPA Administrator (posted on Mises.org), if climate scientists had a decent theory there would be one model, not 20. The mere fact that there is more than one is enough to show that climate scientists do not yet have any kind of viable theory.
There's a reason that, in particle physics, it's called the Standard Model.
"Scientists have always been passionate about their theories. Dawkins, Teller, Feynman, Pinker, Gould and Gliek are hardly famous for their lack of commitment to their beleifs."
Feynman was well known for, among many other things, realizing that, as he put it (paraphrasing): "In science you have to be very careful not to fool yourself. And you are the easiest person for you to fool."
Jeff said...
if climate scientists had a decent theory there would be one model, not 20.
Exactly Jeff. I have been arguing about this issue on the net and everywhere about universality, because that's what physics is about. The model if its universal should work inside the sun, underneath the sea/ocean, on the surface of the moon, inside one's tummy, in a movie theater, in a nuclear reactor and everywhere. The current IPCC models (various ones) work on one narrow domain very well but when it is applied outside of that domain it failed completely.
I have mentioned in my other posts lately relating to how Neil Bohr ended up abandoning his hydrogen theory because it only worked well in atoms/ions with single electron but failed completely in multi-electron/s atoms/ions. His model wasn't universal, so he had to ditch it.
There is no universality or at least part universality that is being observed in current climate models, none whatsoever. There are some that work here and some that work there but none (not a single one) that works everywhere. If there is one that is found to work everywhere, then there is your universality right there in that model. This one must be (with high confident) the correct one, others must then be discarded as they are irrelevant.
Jeff quoted Feynman saying:
In science you have to be very careful not to fool yourself. And you are the easiest person for you to fool.
I think that's a quote from his book, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!".
Anyway, he made a similar comment during his talk at CalTech in 1970s.
CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman
Climate science is trying to answer questions with very very little evidence.
But just because something is hard and does not come up with simplistic easy answers does not mean real people would just give up.
It is actually very hard to find evidence for something that has never happened before.
Humans have never existed before our current species. Neither was their industrialisation.
Climate change occurs over centuries.
It is very very hard to find the correct answers. If it is at all possible.
But giving up is what losers do.
There is conflicting evidence on both sides of the debate.
Not ALL evidence was fudged.
The Skeptics almost entirely rely on attacking models put forward by Climate Scientists.
If the potential consequences of climate change were not so catastrophic then we would not even be having this debate.
Until Skeptics can conclusively prove the exact opposite to mainstream scientists (i.e. that there is conclusively no change to climate from CO2 increases) then the debate will rage on. And governments will continue to err on the side of caution. As they should.
"And governments will continue to err on the side of caution. As they should"
Christopher Monckton:
" these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights."
doesn't sound too much erring on the side of caution to me.
Barry
The burden of proof ALWAYS falls upon the party or parties that assert/s the positive. In the case of the AGW theory that burden properly falls upon those who promote it. As it happens they have NEVER produced a proof for their hopeless assertions. What they have done is present numerous "models", none of which have sufficient relationship with reality to even start to make a proof, let alone be taken seriously by logical adults.
You write, "Until Skeptics can conclusively prove the exact opposite to mainstream scientists (i.e. that there is conclusively no change to climate from CO2 increases) then the debate will rage on. And governments will continue to err on the side of caution. As they should."
That is nonsense.
There is NO requirement to prove the theory incorrect (although that has in fact been achieved already). All that rational people need do is demand proof. If such is not submitted for examination, evaluation and testing, then the entire notion may be dismissed without further consideration.
Again, it is those who assert the positive who must provide proof. They bear that burden. Without proof, their notions are merely arbitrary supposition, random speculation, basless assertion or worse, fraud- lies.
Politicians employing AGW propaganda as a "validation" for coercive compulsory collectivism are not demonstrating caution. They are undertaking a criminal activity destructive of Individual Rights.
LGM
Consensus does exist in certain areas of AGW. CO2 absorbs higher levels of infrared, which is why it's classified as a greenhouse gas.
The greenhouse effect has been traditionally described as the process by which heat enters the atmosphere from the sun, and is either reflected out or absorbed by the atmosphere. This description however is a bit off the mark, it's probably more accurate to say that energy from the sun remains in the atmosphere for different periods of time depending on the composition of the atmosphere.
The theory that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the amount of energy being stored in the atmosphere has existed for over a hundred years, and I'd say there's been a consensus surrounding it since about midway through the last century. The debate that has existed since then has been about:
A. How much more energy would be stored.
B. Where would that energy be stored.
C. What kind of feed-back effects could change the various systems that exchange energy within the atmosphere.
During the late 60's and early 70's their was a lot of research done into the upper reaches of the atmosphere. What they discovered was that there's no water vapour, for the obvious reason that it's too cold. Until this discovery, the idea that man made CO2 emissions could impact the global climate seemed a little far fetched, afterall water vapour is by far a more dominant greenhouse gas.
At this stage, the warming that has been already observed, and I'm not talking about any computer models, has not been explained by any other credible theory. Solar activity cannot explain it. The Earths orbit cannot explain it. There are no other factors that have been measured that can explain it, and increases in CO2 really isn't that far fetched an explanation.
Man made CO2 emissions account for only a small amount of the total CO2 content of the atmosphere, on top of an already small amount of the total greenhouse effect. However, the Earth's average temperature last year was about 288 degrees kelvin, an increase of 3-6 degrees is not large percentage increase of the total energy contained within the atmosphere, yet that amount of warming could be catastrophic for us.
I, as an individual, will suffer the consequences of other people's actions in this. Burning fossil fuels is an indescriminate initation of force against individuals, and no libertarian should support it if they understand the science involved. Which is probably why many libertarians instead choose to remain ignorant.
The burden of proof falls on somebody making a claim. Those who claim man-made global warming should provide proof of it. The skeptics don't have to prove anything.
Having said that if the AGW people present information, you would have to respond to it. So take the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There are several pieces of fairly conclusive evidence that this chemical, in an atmosphere, makes the planet's temperature increase. And there is conclusive evidence that humans contribute to the faster release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would take place by natural processes. So that's something to which the anti-AGW must respond.
Burning fossil fuels is an indescriminate initation of force against individuals
Not per se
See, the problem is that the world has been getting hotter at an unprecedented rate over the last hundred years. That's a fact. There's some natural fluctuation from year to year and decade to decade, but it's still a fact. It's a fact no matter what the culture of the scientists is. Facts are stubborn things.
Think about this, guys. "Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic
sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that
absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases,
the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer." http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdfAs you know, this was happening this summer. Nobody made it up.
I know you'd love it to be not true, but it is. Just look at pictures of the nearly "former" Glacier National Park. Where's that glacier.
So it's complicated how this happens. Big deal. It's happening for sure, and the correlation with increased CO2 and other such gases is entirely clear.
David
You write: "See, the problem is that the world has been getting hotter at an unprecedented rate over the last hundred years. That's a fact."
No. That's not a fact. That is an assertion and it happens to be incorrect. Understand that no matter how many times people like you repeat a falsehood, a falsehood it remains.
The fact is that you are NOT able to prove that the AGW theory is correct. Now facts are stubborn things and the fact of this matter is that a proof for AGW has not been presented in all these years.
You can mumble away about glaciers, polar bears, snow in the mountains, rain on the plains, tornados in the gulf, or whatever the fashionable shreaking sky-is-falling story of the month may happen to be, BUT what is required is the delivery of a proof. Without it what you have is arbitrary assertion, full of preducial bias, emotion and blind belief. That muck is best cast aside without further consideration.
I know you'd like that not to be true, but it is.
LGM
David,
Artic sea ice was at its lowest coverage ever recorded in 2007 and then almost completely recovered in 2008:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html
You say that there has been an unprecedented warming trend over the last century yet provide no citations to corroborate your claim. Here is one of the emails in question, from Kevin Trenberth:
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on Saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). …
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
So even this supporter of global warming admits there has been no warming trend recently.
On other thing David - as I am fond of saying - don't look for certainty, look for error.
Brian said...
look for error
Correct there Brian. Lots of scientists tried to conform to the accepted norm or the consensus in fear of being ridiculed if they propose a different solution, since the current one is not (universal) or either failed in some domains, which is exactly is what we're currently witnessed in the worshiped IPCC models. They don't bother to look for error, which is right in front of them, ie, the inconsistencies of predictions of the models.
Feynman mentioned a good example about the danger of conformity in science in the article on CARGO CULT SCIENCE, which I have linked to in my previous message. The example he used, was the Millikan oil drop experiment to determine the electronic unit charge.
@Brian: Here is the full email thread for your cherry-picked quotation.
I think Trenberth is responding jokingly to a BBC story.
As for his remark: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't."
He is referring to some aspect of his findings in his paper, which you have omitted from your quotation.
@Anyone interested:
Here is a link to an email about CEI and Pat Michael's claim that data was intentionally destroyed by Phil Jones
It explains why the allegation was untrue.
FF,
Have you seen the code in the "Harry Read Me" file?
http://www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Here are some comments from the code:
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
The actual code is also pretty bad:
http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/the-code.html?currentPage=2
@ Monsieur: "I think Trenberth is responding jokingly to a BBC story."
What, are you running warmist interference now?
Trenberth, Schneider and Michael Mann are responding seriously (and worriedly) to the same BBC report to which you responded so dismissively recently.
And what a response from the 'big three.' It smacks of "how dare the BBC break the line?" "Who is this upstart Paul Hudson?" "Where's our normal shill from the BBC gone?"
@ Brian: My impressions of the HARRY_READ_ME.txt are the following.
Ian Harris is recording a number of tests while writing a new program to automatically update a database.
It is Sunday night, and he is a bit frustrated, hence the colourful language.
The big problem he is having is that the data in the database is not formatted like the new data he wants to match and update, hence his comment "There is no uniform data integrity".
The second paragraph you quote is again about the same problem. He considers using older datasets but realises that their formatting would not work.
In paragraph 3, Harry is happy with a result.
The data he is using is test data, and the results of the program should match what he expects.
Your quoted comments might be alarming, but they were never intended for a worldwide audience.
PC: Quoting from Brians cherry-picked extracts:
"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on Saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)."
Trenberth is being humorous. Talking about the weather... (but it's cold today, therefore...) get it?
The participant in that email exchange do sound annoyed.
I guess they figure journalists should cover the actual truth, rather than be "fair and balanced".
Before I comment I'd like to clarify that Myself (David S.) and the other David are not the same person.
LGM wrote, "The fact is that you are NOT able to prove that the AGW theory is correct. Now facts are stubborn things and the fact of this matter is that a proof for AGW has not been presented in all these years."
Actually, the theory is proven, that's just basic physics, the debate has been how much warming would occur as a result of man made emissions.
Brian wrote, "Artic sea ice was at its lowest coverage ever recorded in 2007 and then almost completely recovered in 2008:"
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure2.png
As you can see, although both 2009 and 2008 had more ice than 2007, they are still well below average.
David S said...
that's just basic physics
That's your mistake right there. Climate is not basic physics. If it is, then the solution is already been determined and known, but that's not case at all. Climate is a complex system. When you apply established physical laws to complex systems (be it fluid dynamic laws, thermodynamic laws, etc,...) they don't work (or only partial). The difficulties arise from changing dynamic of the system. Eg, a physical parameter may be constant for a certain specific time, but then it flips and becomes time-varying at certain time regimes. This sort of evolving dynamics is not basic physics but complex physics.
There is very little research going on in climate complexity.
There's certainly a lot we don't know, but to say that the greenhouse effect isn't proven is pretty far fetched.
David S said...
There's certainly a lot we don't know, but to say that the greenhouse effect isn't proven is pretty far fetched.
That's not what I was saying. Greenhouse effect is a physical observation. It wasn't predicted by the model, like what quarks and sub-atomic particles were. These sub-atomic particles were predicted via equations way before those were even observed (directly & indirectly) in laboratory.
What is in dispute is the use of mathematical models based on fundamental physics to probe and make various what if scenarios about the greenhouse effect, similar to probing of subatomic particles and its interactions via mathematical equations, even before those physical observables are being confirmed.
Do you get the difference? It is not the observation that is disputed (ie, greenhouse effects). It is the mathematical modelling of it via basic physics that is disputed or being questioned.
Nuclear physics can do it with a single model, ie, predicting the existence of certain particles or interactions (via mathematical models) in decades ahead before they're being observed in the lab. We have high confidence in the standard model because it exhibits a near or complete universality.
What I mean by this? Well there are elements in the periodic table that never existed in the entire history of the universe since the big bang, but they have been synthesized artificially during nuclear reactions typically in a reactor. Some have a short life (milli, micro, nano-seconds or even shorter...) and unstable and others have longer life and stable such as Californium and others. The properties of these elements being measured, where by the standard model was being applied to the data collected from those measurements, matched the prediction of the standard model. Coincident? Or should we say that we have high confident that the standard model is more generalized (in other words it is near or complete universal), that it can predict the unseen accurately.
If we have an alien ship that landed at the Aotea Centre tomorrow, I can guarantee you that the elements/atoms that make up their neuron cells conform to the laws of the standard model. Remember it is universal.
The kind of predictions that climate models make are not like those as in nuclear physics or say general relativity. However, climate scientists are trying to act as if their models are somehow equivalent to the predictive power of quantum mechanics or general relativity, by stating with high confidence that what their models have predicted are to be taken seriously, no questions asked. The IPCC models are not universal yet, so it is legitimate to keep asking sceptical questions about its predictions, since those models are not quantum mechanics or general relativity to be accurate.
Continue on...
Talking about nuclear reactors, I know a bit about nuclear reactors since I have conducted nucleon scattering experiment at AURA-2 , the linear accelerator at the Physics Department, University of Auckland. I was perhaps one of the last groups of students that used AURA-2, before it was demolished more than a decade ago, to make way for the Computer Science new building on Wellesley St, opposite AUT.
The experiment took 2 whole weeks, 8 hours a day for 10 days (except weekend). It was schedule for the mid-semester break so we the participants were free (ie, no lectures to attend). There were 4 of us that were assigned to conduct this experiment. Our target (to be bombarded with a beam of protons) was a thin foil of gold. Our proton beam source was hydrogen gas that was bumped into a vacuum chamber, where the single electron in the hydrogen is removed/stripped via a highly charged moving belt (inside the vacuum chamber), thus leaving the bare proton itself. These bare protons are then guided via a magnetic field towards the accelerator to be energized to the region of MeVs (mega-electron volts) ie, accelerate them so that the protons can smash right into the gold atoms of the thin foil. The detector is moved around in a circular path from where the gold target is, so that we can measure the number of protons that are scattered as a result from the protons smashing into the gold nucleons. The data that we collected and the results matched that of what the standard model says that they should be.
Our supervisor was Prof. Paul Barker, and that's where he used to live (at AURA-2). If one cannot find him in his office, then definitely one is certain to find him at AURA-2. I have met up with some old physics classmate and we talked that it's sad to see AURA-2 go, since there were only 2 in accelerators in NZ at that time. One at CRI (former DSIR) and the other one at Auckland University. The AURA-2 accelerator at Auck Uni was the more powerful one. I talked to Prof. Barker a few years ago and he said that nuclear physics research projects at Auckland Uni, they now use the CRI accelerator.
And as Jeff Perren quoted in his message above, a comment from a physicist who said, if climate scientists had a decent theory there would be one model, not 20.
Climate science ain't nuclear physics as I already stated above. There are too many models and they're also inconsistent with observations in a wider domain.
"Do you get the difference? It is not the observation that is disputed (ie, greenhouse effects). It is the mathematical modelling of it via basic physics that is disputed or being questioned."
But this isn't true. The observations are being questioned. From "there's been no warming since 1998" to "wow it was really cold in Auckland today, I guess that means AGW is a myth", sites like this one have been promoting arguments that are easily disputed and go against what we already know about the greenhouse effect.
This email saga is a prime example of the misdirection that's occuring, nothing I've read has altered my understanding of what's going on, the interpretations I've seen by the skeptic community have taken them wildly out of context. The above exchange by Monsieur and Brian is a prime example.
If you want to dispute the specific predictions that have been made by computer modeling then fine, that's a bit out of my field of understanding, but the skeptic community as a whole has taken it far beyond that.
The average amount of energy in the atmosphere has increased and will most likely continue to increase as the composition of it changes, regardless of whether humans do it or whether it's part of some natural process.
David S, perhaps you've taken my comment out of context. What I meant is that there is something called greenhouse gas that affects the global temperature. This process exists where it was discovered via observation, not predicted by a computer model before it was observed.
Existence of quarks were predicted via mathematical physics before they were indirectly observed in laboratory more than 2 decades later. Greenhouse effect process bears no similarity at all to the predictions of quark's existence prior to its confirmation in the lab. Greenhouse effect process was observed and not mathematically predicted and that's exactly what I meant. The issue that you raised about others doubting whether there is warming or no warming is a different issue, which I didn't touch on that. What I stated is that the climate models doesn't match the observations. Even if it's a plateau or slightly upward trend since 1998, is not the issue either. The issue if the trend fits that of what the model says. The model says that it shouldn't be plateau or slightly uptrend, but accelerating uptrend (similar to exponential growth). Now do you follow? Phew! If the model doesn't fit the observations then you should examine its validity and that's the point I am trying to make here, which you seem to miss completely.
Remember this, even if there is slightly warming since 1998, ask yourself, does this observation (a fact) fits what the model says? The answer is NO.
"Remember this, even if there is slightly warming since 1998, ask yourself, does this observation (a fact) fits what the model says? The answer is NO."
Once again, I haven't discussed computer modeling at all. What I have said, is that our understanding of the greenhouse effect is good enough that the overall amount of energy contained within the atmosphere and associated systems will increase as the concentration of CO2 increases. This is supported both by the observed increase in CO2 and the observed increase in temperature. The arguements that are often put forward to dismiss this fairly simple fact are quite frankly stupid.
As to your opposition to the use of computer models (or perhaps just the specific models that are being used) to predict climate outcomes, our only other alternative is to simply wait and see, or perhaps read tea leafs. Actually over longer periods of time (15-30 years) the models the IPCC use have been fairly good at predicting trends. I wouldn't expect them to accurately predict temperatures on a year-by-year basis, the variables are too complex. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed or transferred (not an absolute law perhaps, but it would be silly to think this doesn't apply), so the energy observed in 1998 can't have just disappeared, which is basically what the skeptic community is trying to argue.
David said...
the models the IPCC use have been fairly good at predicting trends.
Well, anyone can use a non-climate numerical models such as wavelet, kalman-filter, auto-regression, neural network (ANN) and others to predict time-series trends (ie, no physics at all involved). Just chuck in the time-series data into one of those models and then specify how many n-th time-steps into the future that you want to be estimated, then voila, your rough estimation just spits out by the model.
In fact, the models that I mentioned above have also being applied in climate data analysis. I'll give you a simple example. Let's say you have a temperature time-series in weeks (time-unit) that you have collected (from your home thermometer). Suppose that you have had 6 weeks of temperature data (celcius) already collected, such as shown below (arbitrary):
T = {21, 18, 19, 17, 20, 22};
Now, you want to estimate the next 4 weeks temperature (forecasting trend) by using the above collected data you have , ie, T at n=4. If you choose ANN as your trend estimation model algorithm, then all you do is feed dataset T into your ANN software, then choose n=4, then press a button, then your next 4 weeks trend output is computed & displayed on the screen (or perhaps plotted on a graph) and lets call this series T4 (old plus the new estimation).
T4 = {21, 18, 19, 17, 20, 22, [18.5], [20.3], [19.2], [17.4]};
The numbers in the sets above with brackets are the estimation for the next 4 weeks. The non-bracket numbers are the originals (ie, the temperature data you measured).
All this trend estimation has been done with no knowledge of what caused your temperature dataset series T, to vary in the way that you had observed and measured them using your home thermometer. Why the series are not 19C everyday or why not 25C everyday. You may ask yourself, aha, the ANN algorithm can give trend, but does it also tell you the cause? The answer is NO. The models I have listed above can be accurate if the time-series applied to, are not complex (such as climate or financial market). When the time-series are complex phenomena, then they're quite useless.
Now, to climate models. Climate models use differential equations incorporating physics into them (thermo-dynamics, fluid-dynamics, etc...). These models also try to make trend predictions. What's the difference this time? Climate models try to assume the cause (climate driver) and then make prediction/estimation of trends.
So, the question that you should ask yourself. What is the difference between a blind or black-box trend estimation via non-climate models as ANN, Kalman, AR, Wavelet, and so forth and a white-box trend estimation using climate models which incorporated physical laws? White-box means that you already have a model as a priori.
Well I can say to you that you can't tell the difference, when the data is not sparse, ie, when you get access to a huge time-series dataset to work with. Why bother then, with complex models, if black-box can just work fine in trend prediction? The answer? Because climate white-box models assumed the cause as a priori (man-made warming), and then try to fit the data into the model. In having a priori about the cause, then you must pursue the white-box or otherwise, your fellow religious warmists won't take you seriously if you use black-box, because black-box models don't know about the cause.
David S said...
As to your opposition to the use of computer models (or perhaps just the specific models that are being used) to predict climate outcomes,
Where have I said that I am opposed to using computer models ? Are you putting words into my mouth here?
I support using computer models, what I don't support is preaching computer models that are not robust, ie, models that only work in narrow domains. Climate models that only work in a narrow domain are not to be taken seriously and that's my issue right there.
Computers should be used in climate research, but I am opposed to premature claim of man-made warming, since the models are not consistent with with a wide range of observations. That's my issue there. Model inconsistencies and non-generalizability (ie, not near or complete universal).
David S said...
...our only other alternative is to simply wait and see, or perhaps read tea leafs.
Here is a comment by Phil Anderson from RedAlert that I pinched and pasted here as an answer to your comment above.
Phil Anderson reply...
This reminds me a lot of the ‘Argument from Evil’ whereby even the smallest risk of an eternity in Hell is enough to convince someone that worshiping god is the correct thing to do.
Here are the rest of what you say David, which I am gonna reply to them.
David S said...
Actually over longer periods of time (15-30 years) the models the IPCC use have been fairly good at predicting trends.
Redundant argument. Nothing you offered there is new. Neural network can also do a pretty good job in there too, but without assuming the cause of temperature rises & falls, ie, it is ignorant to the cause of the data that it analyzes.
David S said...
I wouldn't expect them to accurately predict temperatures on a year-by-year basis, the variables are too complex.
Redundant argument, everyone knows that it is the trends and not the actual temperatures. Geez, you look like a Herald repeater aren't you?
David S said...
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed or transferred (not an absolute law perhaps, but it would be silly to think this doesn't apply)
Redundant argument. Every dog, cat, cockroach on the planet know energy conservation, where it can't be created nor destroyed. Also your argument is not relevant at all.
David S said...
...so the energy observed in 1998 can't have just disappeared, which is basically what the skeptic community is trying to argue.
What energy? Can you show me a link to energy trend in relation to global average temperature. Do you know what you're talking about or you just randomly pick out some concepts ard write them into your post?
In fact you've just contradicted yourself of what you stated previously above, ie, energy can't be destroyed or created. If the energy disappear, then it means that it has been transformed to other form and then stored (ie, it is not being observed).
Do you understand why a spherical steel object travels faster when it slides down a smooth declining slope (say a glass) compared to one to when it rolls down the same smooth slope?
The reason is because when the steel object slides (ie, no rolling) all the potential energy it stored from its height relative to the ground is being converted to pure translation kinetic energy (nothing created here, just being transformed). In the case when the steel ball rolls downward (ie, rotating), the potential energy is split into 2 forms. Part goes to the rotational kinetic (ie, rolling) and part goes into translation (whole object's moving towards the bottom). Since energy is neither destroyed nor created, the ball that slides goes faster since the potential energy is not converted into any other form other than translational.
Phew! I've given you free physics class David.
@FF: No-one is claiming that climate modelling is exactly right.
But are you saying that someone like James Hansen, who developed the GISS model, has got it wrong?
Note, Hansen's understanding numerical models is pretty primitive. Compare the following 2 papers. Paper #1) is the original Hansen's climate feedback model, which has been criticized in paper #2) by his fellow NASA colleague/scientist not only for its simplicity (which is in no way represent reality) but also for its assumptions of feedback, which were wrong. And guess what. The GCM are still based on the idea/model proposed in #1).
#1) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. (from year 1984 by Hansen et al)
#2) Inferring instantaneous, multivariate and nonlinear sensitivities for the analysis of feedback processes in a dynamical system: The Lorenz model case study. (from year 2003 by Rossow, et al)
Read paper#1, then followed by paper#2 and see what I mean.
Monsieur said...
No-one is claiming that climate modeling is exactly right.
What? Say it again please? The claim of AGW is about certainty, ie, the model purportedly found that upward trend is not due to natural phenomena but it's due to external driver forcing (ie, someone is responsible and it must be humans). Are you saying that this claim is not supposed to be exactly right? The debate is over as they say, and the consensus of the majority have concluded that the climate modeling is exactly right and WE, humans & our actions are the cause. This conclusion means that they're certain of the cause and their climate modeling is exactly right. It would be disingenuous if you say otherwise.
Another point to note. There is a difference between exact result and consistent result. There is no such thing as exact result in science, there is always uncertainty. But inconsistent result is a different thing altogether. If the theory predicted this, but observations showed otherwise that is inconsistent. Also if the theory says that the model represents reality but only fits observations in certain domain but useless in others, that is inconsistent. Inconsistent results in physical science is highly questionable.
David S, here is the use of neural network in climate data analysis shown in the abstract I have pasted below (tons of materials on the internet about the use of neural network for climate modelling which you can Google). I just wanted to reference it, so as to make you see that I am not overwhelming/fibbing you with scientific terms to obfuscate. What I have described in my previous messages is the way how they appear in scientific literatures. Neural network (black-box algorithm) can outperformed the GCM models (white-box algorithm) as shown below (part abstract only – see the full abstract on the link at the end).
Abstract:
This paper presents an application of temporal neural networks for downscaling global climate models (GCMs) output. Because of computational constraints, GCMs are usually run at coarse grid resolution (in the order of 100s of kilometres) and as a result they are inherently unable to present local sub-grid scale features and dynamics. Consequently, outputs from these models cannot be used directly in many climate change impact studies. This research explored the issues of 'downscaling' the outputs of GCMs using a temporal neural network (TNN) approach....... Furthermore, the different model test results indicate that the TNN model mostly outperforms the statistical models for the downscaling of daily precipitation extremes and variability.
Title : Temporal neural networks for downscaling climate variability and extremes
Note that the paper was not from a climate related journal, but from Neural Network journal, which is one that climate scientists don't read. First, it is too hard for them to understand (except for the few climate scientists who are well versed in numerical modelling) and second it is sensible to stick only to your peers journals (ie, those climatology related ones), since that's what you're familiar with. Paper #2) that I cited above, proposed using neural network to solve for climate sensitivity, since neural network is an excellent approximater. Well neural network is an adaptive universal approximating non-linear algorithm, but it is a black-box one. We don't know how it makes/computes its output, which is very hard to understand. This may be one reason scientists are cautious about its use in climate modelling of its black box nature.
David S said...
This is supported both by the observed increase in CO2 and the observed increase in temperature. The arguments that are often put forward to dismiss this fairly simple fact are quite frankly stupid.
David, you leaped on here with a simple observation and then tried to blindly tie that to the cause of human made warming. This is not science. It is blind faith. Observation can be deceptive and this is why you need a model of reality (one that conformed to all observations - a universal one) and not one dreamed up in the heads of scientists which they work here but failed there.
A direct correlation of increase CO2 and average global temperature doesn't point that warming is man-made. Correlation doesn't necessary mean causation, and this is why model have to be thoroughly not only for its intended domain but for wider domain and see if they stood up. Have you read the Cargo Cult Science by Feynman above? It looked like that I am repeating myself here over and over, because you're not putting forward any new argument yourself and that's why I have to keep repeating.
Here is a fact. Most of the IPCC authors are dudes who only understand statistical analysis (physics in not statistics) and much less about complex system physics. These oracle authors are the ones who are preaching that we're doomed.
Discussions about computer modeling are not required to prove that AGW is a reality. Proof of AGW is not dependant on any computer models.
The composition of the atmosphere affects global temperatures. Human beings have changed the composition of the atmosphere, and we have recorded a corresponding change in global temperatures with no other credible theory to explain this change. That isn't blind faith, that's a logical deduction.
David S,
You wrote that "[p]roof of AGW is not dependent on any computer models".
In what sense do you mean proof? Do you mean argument from premises or do you mean plain to see from the observations?
Proof, in the first sense, is dependent on your premises. Just because you can put forward an argument saying that A follows from B does not mean that A is true. It could be that premise B does not in fact hold or it could be that your argument is wrong (and note that all arguments depend on many inexplicit premises in addition to the explicit ones). So the proof does not make the thing you are trying to prove true. Instead of trying to justify your assertions, you need to test and criticize them in order to try and find error.
If you mean AGW is plain to see from observation, well, as FF pointed out, observation can be deceptive. You need an explanation. Without an explanation, you don't have a context for your observations and you don't know what observations are relevant nor what to predict and test for. If there is a good explanation of AGW, then this ought to be able to be distilled into a computer model and that model ought to be able to make predictions that stand up. The fact that the models have not stood up to observation tells us that the explanations are wrong (and/or that the models are badly implemented, which, judging from the state of the code in the Harry_Read_me file, would be no surprise).
@David S: I agree, computer modeling wasn't essential for proving global warming. But Atmospheric Physicists, Paleo-dendrologists, Oceanographers, Glaciologists, Ecologists, Geographers and Remote sensers have accumulated a lot of data and understanding about their subjects. Computer modeling was an important tool for combining these findings and demonstrating that the cause was AGW. It is the only tool available for indicating what will happen with the climate in the future.
FF pointed out how Hansen's first model was primitive back in 1984. He also pointed out that after 20 years of development, people like Rossow & al contributed to it's refinement. When Hansen produced the modelling for the 2004 and 2007 IPCC reports, it played an important role in displaying why AGW is a grave problem and why action is required.
FF seems to be saying that if he was involved in the modelling that it would be vastly improved. I can't comment on that, but I know that those thousands of minds already working on the problem have a fair idea of what they're doing.
They predictions will never be perfect, but they are the best guess.
"In what sense do you mean proof? Do you mean argument from premises or do you mean plain to see from the observations?"
Both.
Davis S
I previously wrote, "The fact is that you are NOT able to prove that the AGW theory is correct. Now facts are stubborn things and the fact of this matter is that a proof for AGW has not been presented in all these years."
To which you responded, "Actually, the theory is proven, that's just basic physics, the debate has been how much warming would occur as a result of man made emissions."
That's well wrong. For a start the AGW theory is completely unproven. How the climate actually operates, what the drivers are, how it reponds to various factors, how it alters over time and why that is etc. is not understood. Further, there is a significant body of evidence that directly contradicts AGW theory. That necessarily means the AGW theory is incorrect. No amount of data tampering, result cooking, fraud, propaganda, state worshipping or collectivism is going to alter that.
Nevertheless, since you consider you know proof of AGW theory to be mere "basic physics", the implication is you must be well ahead of all those underperforming AGW touters, the AGW "scientists" and their multi-billion dollar modelling and publishing activities.
Think on it. All those billions spent on this massive research and modelling and publishing, yet only you have identified the "basic physics" proof they seek (or, rather, claim to be seeking).
Shit-oh-dear! David, you MUST publish immediately. The future of the entire AGW indulgence granting industry depends upon your wisdom. Those desperate AGW "scientists" will all bow at your feet and lick the lint from between your toes. And they'll like it. Yo! They'll debase themselves and sell their families into slavery for the rapture of a look at your proof, basic though it may be. They NEED it and they need it right NOW! Nothing else has worked. You are the last hope.
Hell! Did you realise they'll elevate you to academic sainthood and exult you with statist glories, for you have achieved that which they have been singularly unable to even approach? The light shines from you illuminating all within the AGW theorisation and modelling commmunity with the holy spirit of the Lord Goricle and The One. Only YOU, above them all, have been able to wrest forth the hidden signs to decode the prophecy!
Basic physics? No need for billions in research then.
Ha! Coulda saved all of it.
Right.
Sure.
LGM
Here is a just published physics paper arguing that there is no such thing as the CO2 greenhouse effect: it is physically impossible.
Abstract:
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦ C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f ) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
I thougt I am done explaining global warming this week but not.
David S said...
Discussions about computer modelling are not required to prove that AGW is a reality. Proof of AGW is not dependant on any computer models.
David, as this thread's discussion growing with the number of messages posted by participants, I've noted that you haven't offered any new argument at all. For me, I am getting a bit tired of trying to explain simple physics concepts to you. The questions that you have posed lately are becoming idiotic. The reason, I suspect that since you cannot grasp the depth of the subject being debated, your only solution is to take the position of arguing for the sake of it.
I've explained to you in previous messages, that it is not basic physics as you think but complex systems' physics. After that explanation above, you still came back to argue that it is basic physics, despite the fact that climate research centres around the world are buying multimillion dollar supercomputers to solve climate models (NIWA recently just bought a $2 million supercomputer). LGM pointed out correctly in that the spending of millions & billions (worldwide) by NIWA and other climate research centres to find the answer to the cause of climate change must be a waste since all you need is basic physics not supercomputers.
David, are you this stupid to think that way? I'll leave it to others to judge.
I tried to explain to you basic physics as you seemed to think that there is all to it in explaining AGW, and I suspect that you still didn't get it. You brought up energy conservation, but your understanding was too simplistic, which I had to explain it to you in more detail. You seemed to think that energy conservation is somehow must be manifested when it is transformed into other forms, which is not necessary true (eg, sliding & rolling spherical steel ball).
I asked you to show the link to energy conservation in relation to the temperature time-series as you stated in your message above when you said the energy observed in 1998 can't have just disappeared, and you failed to do that, since you must have now realized that there is no such thing as a graph of temperature energy, but there is such a thing as a graph of a temperature time-series. They are 2 different things.
David S said...
and we have recorded a corresponding change in global temperatures with no other credible theory to explain this change. That isn't blind faith, that's a logical deduction.
That's why I said above, that it is becoming more idiotic. It is becoming more religious for you. You're talking like one. Religious people will say things to you like, the fact that we're here on earth, must mean something. We can't be here for no reason; therefore there must be an omnipotent power out there, which created us to be here. There is no other explanation. Note : There is no other explanation. Well David, there are other explanations. Man, I think I am wasting my air on trying to give further detail, since your understanding (i am not about model here) of logical deduction that you mentioned looks like a logical deduction of a 5 year old.
You obviously don't understand what climate scientists are doing, do you? Climate models have been used to test whether there is an external (climate) driver or forcing function as called in the model or just natural variability. As I said previously on this blog that climate models (white-box) use physics differential equations similar to the form shown here (Harmonic Oscillation). The link is not about climate model, but the differential equation forms are similar. Scroll down to the section on Sinusoidal driving force . Climate scientists are using similar model to determine if there is forcing function (ie, the right hand side of the equation in that section quoted). If there is, then what's its form? Is it directly observable? Is it time-varying ? Is it a constant? Blah, blah, blah... I'll give you a hint. The forcing function is unknown. What do I mean? Well, there is no equation that says that the forcing function 'F' is:
F = t^3 + 2*t - 3
or
F = 5*Sin(t - 2)
or
F = (t + 3)*exp(4*t)
or whatever. It is still guesswork.
Scientists use computer model to estimate it. It is important to have a forcing function either being estimated using computer model or otherwise the model failed to account for any forcing. Scientists’ estimation of forcing is what tells them that the climate variability is not due to natural process but due to an external influence, and that is humans. It means that the forcing function 'F' is time-dependent, ie, F(t). This is when the projection of physics models (especially ones that aren't universal) to make a leap of faith and reach a conclusion which was determined by a differential equation to tell us that there is definitely an external driver (fore function), which proves AGW? Yep, mathematics proved AGW? But as I said yesterday that climate modelling ain't particle physics' standard model where we can almost certain that it's prediction (ie, standard model) must correspond to reality. Why we should be biased to favour prediction of particle physics standard model and not the worshiped IPCC climate model? One word.
Universality
One is near or complete universal and the other one is not.
David S, I stated above, that relying on correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 level and average global temperature can be very deceptive in which Brian Scurfield also reiterated that point. It is very funny how you think, of applying fairly simple interpretation to a complex problem.
As I have stated above, your assertion of correlation is meaningless and irrelevant, because I have just pointed out (see above) that they use computer model to estimate the forcing function and then use it to solve for solution in order to test if there was a significant influence of the external driver or not. So, please don't post any useless, meaningless and irrelevant assertion, because it makes the debate going in circles and not only that, it's a waste of time to explain to you simple things that primary kids can understand.
Deceptive means exactly what it says, ie, deceptive.Eg, I stated that observation can be deceptive and that's fact, especially when it’s a physics issue. This is the reason you need a theory to explain the observation. You need a climate model of reality not ones that are inconsistent with observations and applicable only in narrow domains. This is what Brian Scurfield explained to you above, which you seemed to keep arguing in simplistic terms. It is either that you argue for the sake of it or argue from an ignorance point of view.
Here is one deceptive observation for you to take a look at. Just look at the descriptions of the 2 diagrams on the top right-hand side of the page. You would be dumbfounded if see something like that in the lab without knowing what the liquid is or what's the physics that governs the properties of such unusual liquid. The behaviour of the liquid is against your commonsense or anything you’ve seen before. Look at the 2 diagrams first and read their descriptions before you read about the content (physics explanation) of the page.
Super-fluidity
This is why you need a theory to explain observations. You don't need a theory to explain everyday experiences (although they can using basic physics as you stated but it's unimportant), but climate system and super fluidity including many countless examples do need a theory to explain them, because observations in those domains are quite deceptive as I have already said.
In your simplistic world view, you can reach a conclusion via basic physics and simple correlation, because observations can't be deceptive, since they're not well-hidden but the reality is, they're well-hidden. Great, I think that psychics, fortune tellers, faith-healers & charlatans are looking for people like you to suck your wallet dry in selling their services to you.
@ Brian: Here is a refutation of your quoted paper, claiming that the greenhouse effect does not exist.
"A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed. "
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect by Arthur P. Smith
Monsieur said...
When Hansen produced the modelling for the 2004 and 2007 IPCC reports
Again Monsieur, you have really shown here to be a Hansen worshiper. Stop worshiping Hansen, he ain't Feynman or Einstein. He didn't make any breakthrough discovery. He had made many assumptions about climate system that many religious followers like yourself take as words of God or as gospels. After you said, I agree, computer modelling wasn't essential for proving global warming, you contradicted yourself by saying that Hansen has produced models for the 2004/2007 IPCC reports. Anyone with some understanding of numerical modelling can produce a model, a signal processing engineer, am mechanical engineer, an image processing engineer, a control system engineer, a mathematician, a statistician (Stephen McIntyre a good example), a nuclear physicist, quantum physicist, astro-physicist, a computer scientist, economist, a robotic engineer and so forth.
The foundations of mathematical techniques being used in those various disciplines listed above are largely overlap. The question that you should have asked, if Hansen's model/s represent(s) reality? I will say it again one more time, because you seemed to be trapped in comma time-warp in which you can't remember what I have explained previously. Hansen's model/s work/s reasonably well in one domain only. It failed when applied to a wider domain. Can you grasp this simple fact please?
In the history of modern physics, any model that seems restricted like this are being modified to be applicable in a wider domain and if it's still failed, then it's premises must be wrong, therefore it is being ditched, and start looking for a new one. That's why young scientists in their 20s years of age made huge breakthroughs over the last 100 years, because they really understood that fairly simple rule. If the model is restricted, then there is something wrong, then they should seek for new one, in which was what turned out to be.
Monsieur said...
it played an important role in displaying why AGW is a grave problem and why action is required.
Monsieur the dispute is about the cause/s. The cause/s is/are being determined by a computer model, not verification by observation. Do you understand the difference? It's simple to grasp really.
Monsieur said...
FF seems to be saying that if he was involved in the modelling that it would be vastly improved.
I meant if I got contracted out by NIWA to develop certain models for them to be used in their OWN data-analytic tasks, then yes. I didn't mean to become a climate scientist researcher myself, writing papers for the IPCC, since what I am doing is much more fun than being a one dimensional climate scientist. Although I could easily get involved in climate science research since I already have the required background already, but that's not me. I have interests in economics so one could say that I should also get involved there, and again that’s not me.
My modelling interest is quite wide from economics/finance, signal processing, control systems, artificial/machine intelligence, mathematics, statistics, engineering, physics, computing and more. This is the reason I don't want to get stuck in one domain because I get bored easily in doing the same model over and over. I like varieties and its challenging and this explains why I like what I do, because there is almost unlimited number of new model/algorithm that I read about everyday. It doesn't mean that I implement them all, but I select those that suit the specific project I am working on. So, I like being a generalist because being a generalist is what makes me tick.
Monsieur said...
I can't comment on that, but I know that those thousands of minds already working on the problem have a fair idea of what they're doing.
That's true, but having an idea doesn't necessary mean that is easily implemented. It is now accepted that climate is a complex system and that's the idea. Implementing it properly is something still undoable/unachievable today. It hasn't been done yet. That's why current models are simplified for reasons of easy implementations. This is where simple models are shown to work here but fail there. Do you see what I mean?
Now, you can see a message of mine here (message #102) at RealClimate from 2007. Your warmist Lord Prof. Gavin Schmidt, didn't know/understand the question I asked him there on that thread. He replied that he will answer but he never did. Actually, he didn't know anything about feed-back control/state-space and system identification theory. The problem he criticized is a feedback control and state-space theory issue. Since he didn't know, he tried to portrayed it as a statistical issue, while in fact it was not. Anyway, feed-back control theory is a complex field (domain of engineers and not climate scientists). This is exactly why I said that Hansen's knowledge of control modelling is basic. He doesn't understand feedback theory to a great depth and for you to take his credential blindly and regard as someone knowledgeable in advanced numerical modelling as is naive of you.
Monsieur said...
The predictions will never be perfect, but they are the best guess.
Monsieur, after I explained in my previous messages the difference between perfect result and consistent result, then here you go again, posting the same thing. Did you read my previous messages? Go back up and read what I said above about the difference.
@FF: "Your warmist Lord Prof. Gavin Schmidt, didn't know/understand the question I asked him there on that thread."
I thought the misunderstanding about feedback was cleared up in this later realclimate discussion: realclimate.org: 09/friday-roundup-3
The following links might give you a better idea of what climate models are... Projections:
- realclimate: Modeller vs modeller
- realclimate: Is climate-modelling science
Monsieur said...
I thought the misunderstanding about feedback was cleared up in this later realclimate discussion
No, it wasn't. The explanation was simplistic. Gavin didn't address why should the process be AR(1), AR(2), AR(3), AR(4), AR(5),..., AR(n),
where n=1,2,3,..., infinity.
AR (auto-regression) processes is an infinite order (n-th order). If you don't know the AR order 'n' as a priori because you don't know the dynamics of the system, then you estimate the proper order via SysID (system identification) either linearly or non-linearly. It could turned out to be an AR(4) process , AR(7) or AR(23), etc, depends on which one has the smallest error (AIC error).
The reality is we don't know exactly the climate dynamic, so pre-empting by saying that AR(1) is wrong which implied that you understand the systems dynamic inside out while in fact we don't.
I hope that you and other warmists including Lord Gavin Schmidt don't fly in a commercial jet that it's control system has been designed using his (Gavin's) mentality , ie, pre-determining the AR order as a priori because such plane is really unsafe. The way control system engineers design work (or building a commercial jet , etc,...) is not to assume prior knowledge of the atmospherics’ dynamics in which the jet travels even though it can be known to a degree of certainty. They mostly prefer to estimate the system response's of the aircraft (ie, various AR processes) via using black-box type models.
Schmidt, Hansen and most of the climate scientists prefer white-box. White-box works well when the systems dynamic is a small/simple one. When it is a complex system, then black-box have shown to outperformed the white-box type models.
Monsieur said...
The following links might give you a better idea of what climate models are... Projections:
Monsieur, the articles were written for lay warmists who don't understand modelling. I already knew all the issues that Gavin addressed in that post.
BTW, do you know that your Lord Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician and not a physicist? His PhD was in mathematics? Well, it is unimportant to the debate really, but the point here, is that the likes of warmist followers as yourself frequently take a pot shot at us who understand numerical modelling really well although we are non-climate scientists. See, Lord Gavin can understand climate modelling without being trained as a climate scientist and so as Stephen McIntyre and so as Falafulu Fisi and so as hundreds of thousands others.
@FF: I appreciate why a mathematician would consider a black-box approach, but what would the result be?
Another projection, but this time it would not be based on any underlying understanding of the processes involved.
I see that you discussed the subject with Timothy Chase on RealClimate.
What did you find unsatisfactory in his explanation?
Brian - "essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. "
That's most ridiculous thing I've read since Dr A.E. Wilder-Smith tried to disprove evolution using that same law!
"I've noted that you haven't offered any new argument at all."
True, I've only offered old arguements.
Monsieur said...
I appreciate why a mathematician would consider a black-box approach, but what would the result be?
No difference at all, in their computation capabilities, although some are more appropriate in certain modelling tasks than others. Black-box is suitable in situations that the modeller has less knowledge about the system to be modelled, but all he has is observational data available to him/her. He will use the data (as input & output) to give a rough estimation of how the internal dynamic of a systems' is. White-box, you need to know the model of the system as a priori, eg, if I want to design a car (its shape/geometry), then all I do is use newton laws (such as its differential equation form), ie, I already know the supposed function of the system (apriori).
Grey-box, model is when one understands the process of the system to be modelled but somehow the dynamics of certain parameters are unknown, which those parameters are needed to be estimated. This is the question that I posed to your Lord Prof Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate.
Whether it's black-box, white-box or grey-box is irrelevant. These techniques are there merely as a tool to assist the modeller. These mathematical models are not psychics to tell us what we can't/don't see (ie, sensing those with our measuring instruments). These models robustness can range from excellent, useful, worse to useless; no matter how complicated we try to model a particular system if the premises are wrong.
The important issue is that you have to establish your premises correctly. If you formulate wrong ones from the beginning then it will show up as inconsistencies in observations as the model becomes widely scrutinized when more data is collected and more domains are being applied to.
BTW, your Lord Prof Gavin Schmidt banned me (2 years ago) from posting messages at RealClimate after I frustrated him. I posted a message saying that any scientist that relies heavily on Bayesian statistics to make inference about climate system is a blind-faith follower. The reason I stated that, was they (RealCliamte & their warmists) used Bayesian statistics to refute Schwartz's et al paper on climate sensitivity. I was given a warning, for that and then finally I got the boot shortly after, when I labeled Lord Prof Gavin Schmidt daft. So, I haven't been back then. I don't like posting there because of heavy moderation, even most of my posts while making comments there for about 3 weeks, didn't make it (ie, to appear on their site). They withheld most of my posts and most were deleted, and that's why I labeled him daft. I've never been back there since.
Brian, thanks for the link. The green-house-effect falsification paper must be circulated to all our parliamentarians/politicians to read. This is an unprecedented smash hit that should be (according to the authors recommendation) distributed to every climatologists on the planet. BTW, the correct link is shown below:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Keen readers here at Not PC who would be interested to read the publication cited above, the paper has got formula derivations which you can just skip/avoid those, which it still makes it readable to the general public and non-experts.
Any National party hacks who read this message , please forward the above paper to whoever the science advisor to John Key. They must read this paper.
The authors of the paper are brilliant. One could have easily mistaken the paper as a work of Feynman, ie, making complex physics concept's simple to understand, very clear in their explanations, very thorough (tons of references), etc...
The paper is a long one, about 90 pages and I am currently on page 51. I may pause there to have a break & to continue on at some stage , perhaps tomorrow.
I see the falsification has been refuted by what Monseiur posted.
Monsieur said...
Here is a refutation of your quoted paper, claiming that the greenhouse effect does not exist.
Monsieur, how about do some readings first before jumping in here to proclaim that Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf Tscheuschner's paper has been refuted. The refutation you claimed by your new lord , Arthur Smith (in which clearly you haven't read except the abstract perhaps that's the only thing you can understand) is not a refutation at all. Read Smith's full paper and then compare it to Gerlich/Tscheuschner's paper. You would be a fool to think that there was a refutation. There was no refutation at all; although Smith made it out that he refuted Gerlich/Tscheuschners's paper.
Here are the papers, so you can read them, one after the other (in no particular order, whichever comes first to you).
Ref #1) Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (Ralph Smith - 2008)
Ref #2) Falsification of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Gerlich & Tscheuschner - 2007/update 2009)
Monsieur, Smith's paper is the basic physics that David S has been talking about on this thread; many simplifications were made in order to make his derivation simple & tractable. A final year physics student may have mistaken Smith’s paper as lecture notes posted by his/her lecturer on the internet by accident. Yep, such topics covered in Smith's paper are taught in final year laser & phonics physics papers and also in electro-magnetism papers. I wondered if David S is indeed the author of that paper in Ref #1. David S are you really Arthur Smith (author of Ref #1), but indeed your internet nom de plume is David S. Am I correct? C'mon tell us.
Monsieur, I am amazed that you just posted something that you haven't read. I bet that you haven't read all the references that I have cited so far in my messages on this thread. It is important that you read references so to avoid me or others explaining & repeating the same thing which are already covered in cited references. You seem to be good in repeating what others have said on the internet. I come to suspect that you might be Brian Rudman from the NZ Herald, a warmist repeater reporter. Tell us the truth Monsieur, are you in fact Brian warmist Rudman posting as Monsieur on the internet?
I advise that you read both references Monsieur. Here is a note for you. Smith's paper only cites 5 references. Would you believe that? A refutation only cites 5 references! Compare that to Gerlich & Tscheuschner's paper with 205 cited references. Gerlich & Tscheuschner's paper is very thorough, from optics, radio-waves, black-body and so forth. Smith’s paper doesn’t attempt to tackle those topics instead rely heavily on model simplification.
Here are some useful points (there are many) that I've just selected from Gerlich/Tscheuschner's smash hit falsification of the Greenhouse effect fraud are pasted below. I am only halfway through the paper. This is useful for readers who aren't keen on reading the full paper, and that's ok and why should you. After all peer review papers are not intended for the general public, but that's ok, us sceptics on this forum can help out with the explanations of the complex topics here for you so you can understand/follow the discussion.
Selected bits:
a) It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coefficients must be a highly involved many-body theory.
b) On this level neither the mathematical formulation of the first and second law
of thermodynamics nor the partial differential equations of hydrodynamics or irreversible thermodynamics are known; the phenomenon has thus to be analyzed with comparatively elementary means.
c) In general, most climatologic texts do not refer to any fundamental work of thermodynamics and radiation theory.
d) Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture, which may be proved or disproved already in concrete engineering thermodynamics [95{97]. Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical textbook on this subject [95]. 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on the Earth's climates is definitively un-measurable [98].
e) In school books, in popular scientific articles, and even in high-level scientific debates, it has been stated that the mechanism observed within a glass house bears some similarity to the anthropogenic global warming.
f) The constant "sigma" appearing in the T4 law is not a universal constant of physics. It strongly depends on the particular geometry of the problem considered. The T4-law will no longer hold if one integrates only over altered spectrum, appropriate to real world situations.
e) -that until today the "atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not appear
1) in any fundamental work of thermodynamics,
2) in any fundamental work of physical kinetics,
3) in any fundamental work of radiation theory;
- that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and, partly, contradict to each other.
f) All fictitious greenhouse effects have in common, that there is supposed to be one and only one cause for them: An eventual rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to lead to higher air temperatures near the ground. For convenience, in the context of this paper it is called the CO2-greenhouse effect.14 Lee's 1973 result [109] that the warming phenomenon in a glass house does not compare to the supposed atmospheric greenhouse effect was confirmed in the 1985 report of the United States Department of Energy "Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide" [91]. In this comprehensive pre-IPCC publication
MacCracken explicitly states that the terms "greenhouse gas" and "greenhouse effect" are misnomers [91, 142].
g) For the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect one cannot watch anything, and only calculations are compared with one another: Formerly extremely simple calculations, they got more and more intransparent. Nowadays computer simulations are used, which virtually nobody can reproduce [143].
h) Furthermore, Al Gore confuses absorption/emission with reflection. Unfortunately, this is also done implicitly and explicitly in many climatologic papers, often by using the vaguely defined terms "re-emission", "re-radiation" and "black-radiation".
Post a Comment