Science Denial

[AV1611VET]

Yesterday's science:

 

[RickG]

Why should we care about your house publications, if you guys don't care about ours?

?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Lots of claims but no substance to support any of it. Please provide a credible source showing flawed data specific to climate science.

It is math. You don't need hand waving to do it; you can do it yourself.

Would you like to see how the error in climate change evolves in a mathematically rigorous way? I can do that here.

For your own exercise, if you begin with erroneous data (>10% error in a parameter,) then every other piece of data wi be computed with that error.

For example, a 300 year time sample of a dynamic system - assuming the real time interval needed to measure a quantatatively meaningful period of system responses is 3000 years - is going to carry a substantial amount to error over in calculation (i.e. ~90% of the data in a particular periodic set is missing.)

To fill in this 90%, you use axioms, postultes, assumptions and extrapolation of data - which may include constants, and formulation of math that first agrees with the science.

It starts with math - which start from an assumption - which has high amount of error. You don't need to consult a scholarly article, and possibly not even a textbook to determine this.

 

[Goonie]

Yesterday's science:

Well if you feel like that, next time you go to your GP insist on him only treating you according to the teachings of Galen. The thing with science just like medicine is that it improves over time as people learn.

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes, that sounds like a totally plausible scenario.

 

[RickG]

It is math. You don't need hand waving to do it; you can do it yourself.

Would you like to see how the error in climate change evolves in a mathematically rigorous way? I can do that here.

For your own exercise, if you begin with erroneous data (>10% error in a parameter,) then every other piece of data wi be computed with that error.

For example, a 300 year time sample of a dynamic system - assuming the real time interval needed to measure a quantatatively meaningful period of system responses is 3000 years - is going to carry a substantial amount to error over in calculation (i.e. ~90% of the data in a particular periodic set is missing.)

To fill in this 90%, you use axioms, postultes, assumptions and extrapolation of data - which may include constants, and formulation of math that first agrees with the science.

It starts with math - which start from an assumption - which has high amount of error. You don't need to consult a scholarly article, and possibly not even a textbook to determine this.

You keep claiming erroneous data. If there is erroneous data I agree. Where's the erroneous data? Be specific and demonstrate how it is erroneous.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You keep claiming errors, what errors? Furthermore, most of this research is performed by teams of scientists cross checking one another, not to mention the rigorous peer review process for publication.

MATH.

The earth is a dynamic system. You need to model it with differential equations - sometimes extremely complicated ones (the Bjerkens' circulation theorem of sea-land breeze cycles alone requires solution techniques to PDEs.)

Some of these differential equations, as you may know, relate space to changes in time. So, for example, modelling dynamic atmospheric changes requires precise and accurate parameters within a certain accepted error limit. 0.00008% of data on a dynamical system is nowhere near enough accuracy to proceed without introducing more error.

It is math.

 

[AV1611VET]

?

Scientists even copyright their junk, don't they? (FYI, the KJB isn't copyrighted.)

Then they have the gall to mock the world by listing the countries by how scientifically literate they are. (I think the U.S. is 26th on the totem pole?)

I always got a kick out of England.

While people were here on the Internet talking about how much we needed an education, the king of England went and tripled their tuition, making it even harder for the common people to have access.

If you guys really want us to be smart cookies and get a ejicashun, let's see you guys arc & spark at college bookstores that sell the latest King James McGraw-Hill science bibles for what? $275.00?

Don't tell us how dumb we are; tell us how greedy you guys are.

 

[RickG]

MATH.

The earth is a dynamic system. You need to model it with differential equations - sometimes extremely complicated ones (the Bjerkens' circulation theorem of sea-land breeze cycles alone requires solution techniques to PDEs.)

Some of these differential equations, as you may know, relate space to changes in time. So, for example, modelling dynamic atmospheric changes requires precise and accurate parameters within a certain accepted error limit. 0.00008% of data on a dynamical system is nowhere near enough accuracy to proceed without introducing more error.

It is math.

Still no example. What is the error in showing the earth is warming? What is the error in attributing it to CO2 from fossil fuels.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You keep claiming erroneous data. If there is erroneous data I agree. Where's the erroneous data? Be specific and demonstrate how it is erroneous.

It is the MATH - specifically, as I have said several times, the amount of data chosen to model the system is extremely high in error as the earth is dynamic. Choosing 300 years of hard data of the earth LIFETIME (or, even the periodic range) and extrapolating it accurately to create a correctly predictive model is statistically impossible. Every time you make a calculation with a parameter that is high in error, those results are also erroneous.

If I say pi = 100, when it is pi ~ 3.14, that means I am 97% erroneous.

Saying the volume of a unit ball is V=133.33 introduces linear error using pi = 100 (97% error.) If I used r=5, and a correct pi value, then volume is now (200/3)pi. So we have a ~99.2% error - and that is if I just happen to use a value for radius 5x larger than a unit ball, with the correct pi value. Error compounds over operations.

When you start with high error, you end with it unless you are statistical luck itself, or you operate in a different dimension of space and time. It begins at the very foundation.


But, once you overlook this point, the science adds up...

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Still no example. What is the error in showing the earth is warming? What is the error in attributing it to CO2 from fossil fuels.

Do you not get it?

The entire thing is wrong because of a major parameter - time, t - being incredibly erroneous to begin with.

It starts with error; you don't even have to know the theory. If it is backed by the assumptions and extrapolations that are founded on erroneous parameter(s), the entire thing compounds the error.

 

[RickG]

It is the MATH - specifically, as I have said several times, the amount of data chosen to model the system is extremely high in error as the earth is dynamic. Choosing 300 years of hard data of the earth LIFETIME (or, even the periodic range) and extrapolating it accurately to create a correctly predictive model is statistically impossible. Every time you make a calculation with a parameter that is high in error, those results are also erroneous.

Climate models do not make predictions nor are they implied to be perfect. They run "what if" scenarios based on variable data inputs. The way their reliability is tested is to run them backwards to see if their results actual recorded data. In fact they do. Furthermore, when model scenarios match actual data and conditions that occur they have been found to have a 95% reliability. Here's a simple example showing how we know it is CO2 causing the warming:

Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).

 

[RickG]

Do you not get it?

The entire thing is wrong because of a major parameter - time, t - being incredibly erroneous to begin with.

It starts with error; you don't even have to know the theory. If it is backed by the assumptions and extrapolations that are founded on erroneous parameter(s), the entire thing compounds the error.

All I've seen is examples of bad statistics, nothing applied to climate. Show me in a published paper where the data and statistical analysis is wrong.

 

[Belk]

Uh huh. Show us all these scientists with multi million dollar houses that make huge sums of money lying about their life's work.

 

[Greatcloud]

Rick let me play Devil's advocate for a while. Have you ever been on the website Climate Audit and studied it.
I have been over on Real Climate and have written on it and studied it extensively. Where do you get your information from the other side ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where do you get your information from the other side ?

And don't forget to mention if it's copyrighted material, Rick ... thanks.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Climate models do not make predictions nor are they implied to be perfect. They run "what if" scenarios based on variable data inputs. The way their reliability is tested is to run them backwards to see if their results actual recorded data. In fact they do. Furthermore, when model scenarios match actual data and conditions that occur they have been found to have a 95% reliability. Here's a simple example showing how we know it is CO2 causing the warming:

Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).

Do you think 250 years is enough information on a dynamical system that has existed for allegedly billions of years?

In other words, can you say you know enough about a 76 year old man by studying any one 3-minute chunk of his life?

Does that even sound reasonable to you? Because, climate science that looks to predict terrestrial patterns and trends takes marginal chunks of recorded history most intact, and they extrapolate a pattern based on assumptions, postulates and axioms observed from the set of data they have. I am not talking about local climate; I am talking about trending an entire planetary system and alleging being able to predict an entire set dynamical systems.

It doesn't make sense mathematically - or in general - to begin with error, and think that your results will magically come out accurate, and the unique solution. There is a lot of time spent to determine the uniqueness of a solution, or at least there should be.

Plus, most miss the earth is dynamic: that means that even if 7B of us breath out all at once, the rate of change in CO2 concentration, for example, is not always in steady state. You would have to accurately measure rate constants and material changes of the system - more compounded error. Then, you can compare the two processes to see if the activity actually has appreciable change on the earth system. (You have asked me four times for science showing how AGW can be erroneous, or how I can stipulate the error begins with certain parameters; I can show you an example of 7B human exhalation equilibriated by a nontrivial planetary dynamic as I have said for other examples.)

That is the mathematical reason why it is ridiculous.

The political reason - equally pertinent - was already explained in meme, picture and commentary on this thread. Even if you don't understand or agree with what I have said from an academic point of view, consider from a political point of view that:

No government will ever alert their citizens of an event within two lifetimes (150 - 225 years.) Why?

1. Panic
2. Economic collapse
3. Anything goes (public hot war, no bars)
4. Lawlessness
5. Political, economic and religious backlash
6. Pandemic (psychological or biological)
7. (Insert personal doom here.)

There is no profitable reason why any government would warn it's citizens of an ELE only decades before it is supposed to happen. People would stop being "consumers," and may quit their jobs and enjoy life. People would throw middle fingers at authority, and so on.

It isn't even a conspiracy THEORY, or conspiracy; no gover mentioned would do this based on very realistic factors that affect everyone. So, why is this being addressed as doom?

It is being addressed as doom - with the psychological implant that "we" can fix it - remedied through capital. Your fears, and an exploitation of each person''s "Lab Coat Syndrome" once again are supposed to save you only through your wallet.

This is why doom warnings would never happen within two lifetimes. People would tell their kids, and they would have to hope the "event" was far enough down the line so that both the parent and child are dead - and the resultant generation left is an apathetic, self-absorbed instant gratification generation that is too busy to simply look up.


I do think there are other things not related to the farce of AGW - things actually being scientifically hidden BECAUSE they are actually of concern - that contribute to global climate change.

 

[RickG]

Do you think 250 years is enough information on a dynamical system that has existed for allegedly billions of years?

No, neither does climate science. The study of Paleoclimatology is the study of past climates. My M.S in Earth Science (Univ. Memphis, 1977) was concentrated in three areas, geology, oceanography, and climatology. My specific area of concentration was Paleoclimatology, where I spent an entire year of applied research in the area of ice ages and their causes throughout earth history. I am not a laymen, and am well aware of statistical procedures and how the wrong analysis method can produce incorrect results. For example, the use of p-values in a climate model suggesting probability would be inappropriate. Climate models do not deal with normal distributions of data, they deal with dynamic systems. Yes, one can assign an error and range to the results, but the underlying mechanisms are dynamic and have a range of impact or weight in the overall result.

Does that even sound reasonable to you? Because, climate science that looks to predict terrestrial patterns and trends takes marginal chunks of recorded history most intact, and they extrapolate a pattern based on assumptions, postulates and axioms observed from the set of data they have. I am not talking about local climate; I am talking about trending an entire planetary system and alleging being able to predict an entire set dynamical systems.

Although climate models include a number of dynamic systems they are looking for a single specific outcome of a specific attribute, not an entire climate projection. Also, do not confuse climate with weather, they are completely different.

It doesn't make sense mathematically - or in general - to begin with error, and think that your results will magically come out accurate, and the unique solution. There is a lot of time spent to determine the uniqueness of a solution, or at least there should be.

That is why climate models run scenarios, not predictions.

Plus, most miss the earth is dynamic: that means that even if 7B of us breath out all at once, the rate of change in CO2 concentration, for example, is not always in steady state. You would have to accurately measure rate constants and material changes of the system - more compounded error. Then, you can compare the two processes to see if the activity actually has appreciable change on the earth system. (You have asked me four times for science showing how AGW can be erroneous, or how I can stipulate the error begins with certain parameters; I can show you an example of 7B human exhalation equilibriated by a nontrivial planetary dynamic as I have said for other examples.)

I believe I've already mention that climate models include a number of dynamic systems, they are not ignored. As for CO2, numerous measurements are taken world-wide numerous times during the day. There are also paleo record proxy's going back more than a billion years.

As for the human exhalation factor, that is part of the natural carbon cycle. The problem is the excess from fossil fuels. Throughout the 800,000 Vostok ice core record the warm interglacial periods were approximately only 280 ppmv at their peak. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution it has risen now to 404 ppmv. We also know that excess above 280 ppmv is from fossil fuels by way of carbon isotope ratios which have a unique signature.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you think 250 years is enough information on a dynamical system that has existed for allegedly billions of years?

Thanks to ice cores from the poles, and fossil analysis, we can actually check out weather patterns from multiple millions of years ago. That's part of how we know about the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures to begin with.

No government will ever alert their citizens of an event within two lifetimes (150 - 225 years.) Why?

1. Panic
2. Economic collapse
3. Anything goes (public hot war, no bars)
4. Lawlessness
5. Political, economic and religious backlash
6. Pandemic (psychological or biological)
7. (Insert personal doom here.)

Hahahahahahaha, Swine flu (H1N1) and most of the media disagrees, hahaha. I'm sure that there are plenty of moments in which governments try to delay news about events leaking out to reduce panic, but it doesn't really work out all that well for them in the end, does it?

There is no profitable reason why any government would warn it's citizens of an ELE only decades before it is supposed to happen. People would stop being "consumers," and may quit their jobs and enjoy life. People would throw middle fingers at authority, and so on.

Warning people decades ahead of time gives them time to prepare for it, and actually reduces panic since few people can actually look ahead farther than a couple years. The majority of people on this planet recognize that one day, they are going to die. Until old age, very few people consistently worry about it, and those that die kicking and screaming and crying about it are actually a minority. The most bitter people about dying tend to be people in my age group (when diagnosed with a terminal illness).

It isn't even a conspiracy THEORY, or conspiracy; no gover mentioned would do this based on very realistic factors that affect everyone. So, why is this being addressed as doom?

Probably because while the bulk of the worst is yet to come, preventing it has to start now. You have to motivate a species that can rarely look ahead more than a few years into working towards a goal that won't yield results for decades. It's hard to do that.

It is being addressed as doom - with the psychological implant that "we" can fix it - remedied through capital. Your fears, and an exploitation of each person''s "Lab Coat Syndrome" once again are supposed to save you only through your wallet.

We are well past the point of spending our way out of this, though there are certainly people taking advantage of the opportunity. Tesla cars might be one of the worst. Do you know how much pollution goes into the production of those exotic batteries? You are much better off just driving a used car with an ok gas mileage until it falls apart than immediately buying up a new car. The lumber industry is the enemy? Most forest destruction is for use of grazing cattle, not actually utilizing the lumber.

That doesn't mean that there is nothing worth investing in or worth doing. It costs you less to use a car as long as you can rather than get a new one every few years. Buy glassware rather than disposable cups, plates, and utensils and hand wash them. What you end up spending most in reducing resource usage is time. Most people just don't want to put the time into it, and would rather try to buy their way out of it, but you just can't.

This is why doom warnings would never happen within two lifetimes. People would tell their kids, and they would have to hope the "event" was far enough down the line so that both the parent and child are dead - and the resultant generation left is an apathetic, self-absorbed instant gratification generation that is too busy to simply look up.

Sadly, that is kinda what happened with warnings about global warming, isn't it? Since it is so gradual, people don't notice the problem very much.

I do think there are other things not related to the farce of AGW - things actually being scientifically hidden BECAUSE they are actually of concern - that contribute to global climate change.

The scientific community as a whole has neither the motivation nor the capacity to hide something like that. It would require that millions of people under dozens of governments collectively agree to hide the truth, and for every new person that becomes a part of the scientific community to do it too. Just no, some people do have their integrity, you know.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Thanks to ice cores from the poles, and fossil analysis, we can actually check out weather patterns from multiple millions of years ago. That's part of how we know about the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures to begin with.

An ice core and fossil analysis is data incorporated for the purposes of making reasonable extrapolations, assumptiojs, postulates and axioms for the model.

It is not a snapshot in the past, because the dating method has error, and you are still extrapolating data from time-dependent data for which your location is not t=ti, the incident time interval.

You can model it, but it won't be accurate. It is at best an approximation.

Hahahahahahaha, Swine flu (H1N1) and most of the media disagrees, hahaha.

Swine flu was not an end of the world apocalyptic event - which is why YOU and I knew about it in the first place.

No government is going to warn their citizens about an end kf the world, or end of a civilizatiln event until you are on the precipice of the event. That is simply because government would fail the minute people figure out there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent demise.

I'm sure that there are plenty of moments in which governments try to delay news about events leaking out to reduce panic, but it doesn't really work out all that well for them in the end, does it?

Those are not EOTWAWKI situations. No government wi warn their people of an EOTWAWKI situation with more than a month to spare.

Warning people decades ahead of time gives them time to prepare for it, and actually reduces panic since few people can actually look ahead farther than a couple years.

The fact that you think you can loom ahead at anything is the reason why you know in the first place. Panic destroys entire governments; there is no way any earth government is going to give people a heads up on an EOTWAWKI situation so they can degenerate for decades. Never.

Which is one reason why I said AGW is not an EOTWAWKI situation for at least 150 more years.

The majority of people on this planet recognize that one day, they are going to die. Until old age, very few people consistently worry about it, and those that die kicking and screaming and crying about it are actually a minority. The most bitter people about dying tend to be people in my age group (when diagnosed with a terminal illness).

Humans are as dynamic as this planet; none of us really know what others are thinking with certainty - unless you are telepathic or psionic. People are not who they project until they are faced with basic threats to id: hunger, thirst, security, etc.

Probably because while the bulk of the worst is yet to come, preventing it has to start now. You have to motivate a species that can rarely look ahead more than a few years into working towards a goal that won't yield results for decades. It's hard to do that.

Humans cannot "prevent" the entire planet. If it is going to have a periodic or final ELE, it will do so.

The problem with AGW is the connection between global capital and scientific theory.

We are well past the point of spending our way out of this,

We could NEVER spend our way out an earth dynamical system - but many people beloieve we can.

though there are certainly people taking advantage of the opportunity. Tesla cars might be one of the worst. Do you know how much pollution goes into the production of those exotic batteries? You are much better off just driving a used car with an ok gas mileage until it falls apart than immediately buying up a new car. The lumber industry is the enemy? Most forest destruction is for use of grazing cattle, not actually utilizing the lumber.

This is an entiry different economic, and social beast.

That doesn't mean that there is nothing worth investing in or worth doing. It costs you less to use a car as long as you can rather than get a new one every few years. Buy glassware rather than disposable cups, plates, and utensils and hand wash them. What you end up spending most in reducing resource usage is time. Most people just don't want to put the time into it, and would rather try to buy their way out of it, but you just can't.

Sadly, that is kinda what happened with warnings about global warming, isn't it? Since it is so gradual, people don't notice the problem very much.

The scientific community as a whole has neither the motivation nor the capacity to hide something like that. It would require that millions of people under dozens of governments collectively agree to hide the truth, and for every new person that becomes a part of the scientific community to do it too. Just no, some people do have their integrity, you know.

Yes they do - I have been in the same situation in academia.

And, compartmentalization keeps everything on a leveled need to know basis. So, it isn't about millions of scientists hiding a conspiracy so much as it is many scientists have no idea what their work is actually for - unless explicitly stated in a contract for finding.

Then, you stk don't know what your intellectual property wi. E used for. It isn't the "scientists" that are the problem: it is academia, and academics playing politics. Scientists are people, too.