Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Yep, what the MSM needs is more science reporters who aren't pushing an agenda...
— Marita Noon
Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life.
— Marita Noon
Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life.
plunker said:
This isn't really 'climate' science at all is it.
Curious, then, that it's included in the IPCC reports as part of the WG1: The Physical Science Basis chapter 10.Cook et all also included papers concerning ocean acidification in their 2013 "consensus" paper. Admittedly the whole paper is laughable, but ocean acidification was, none the less, considered part of climate science by them.
It's a little unreasonable to disown the subject when it raises questions. Unless, of course, it's the narrative that matters above all else, including science.
plunker said:
Is that what they did then - split it into two periods?
I have no idea what they did, but that would have been the only appropriate approach to take to try and validate their model if the historic data is considered unreliable unless they had postulated the model and then waited several decades to obtain new data to verify it against.So, if they didn't do that, they broke one of the first tenets of modelling - NEVER validate against in-sample data.
Had I ever validated in-sample I would have (rightly) failed my degree, and that was only at BSc level. In fact, seeing as that's also fundamental in statistics generally, I would also have failed my statistics at a mere O level - it really is that basic a principle! So those with doctorates really should know better.
In fact, they probably do know better, if truth be told, but also know that the vast majority will simply accept "the model says". Sloppiness doesn't matter if the result is as you expect and no-one's going to question it!
plunker said:
Btw you expressed concern about the public being misled by science reporting in the MSM and suggested this 'pHraud' story is the kind of thing they should be reporting on - how's that working for you now in light of the main fraud allegation being based on a graph that uses data that is in all likelihood unfit for purpose and the story is now being echoed around the internets?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=What+if+Obama%E2...
Interesting link, but I don't see much in the way of mainstream media in the results so I'm not quite sure what relevance it as to my point about the MSM?https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=What+if+Obama%E2...
That notwithstanding, the data being declared "in all likelihood unfit for purpose" by online opinion isn't really relevant. Its fitness, or otherwise, should have been addressed in the publications concerned rather than simply ignoring the fact that the data exists.
When real-world data exists in science, it's very much like a court of law: that data has to be assumed innocent (ie: valid) until someoone proves it to be guilty (invalid).
In this case it might (or might not) be a trivial matter to show it's unfit, but that doesn't absolve an author from doing so. Certainly, failing to even mention that apparently conflicting data exists - no matter how unreliable - simply isn't scientific.
Edited by Variomatic on Saturday 27th December 17:21
Edited by Variomatic on Saturday 27th December 17:24
plunker said:
Yep, what the MSM needs is more science reporters who aren't pushing an agenda...
— Marita Noon
Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life.
Yet again plunker's training coach helps him to avoid the ball and go straight for the player.— Marita Noon
Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life.
Maybe what we need are more career criminals with multiple arrest records, who are happy to push one agenda forward - say nuclear power - and another back - say coal powered energy - while sensibly ignoring all the stuff that others are so fond of but that clearly does not work.
In some ways such a person might almost appear to be offering a balanced agenda and even a sane view.
Of course they would run the risk of being accused of pushing unacceptable agendas by all sides of a discussion - that is what politics is about.
Which, surely, is what your quote is referring too. Science Reporters dealing in politics rather than reporting Science and allowing Scientists and interested member of the public (probably very few of those) to discuss things and try to understand them without distorting the work being reported.
Of course in post modern science it's not easy to see how that might happen.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 27th December 22:28
plunker said:
I've read the posts on WUWT and as usual whenever the carbon cycle is the subject Ferdinand Engelbeen shows up and provides some level-headed input. It looks like a puffed up non-story to me.
Presumably you've also seen his latest point on there then that the established models have been validated against real world data since around 50 years ago?Quite apart from certain other potential problems with that concerning changing environments (such as changes in biological activity), that means that 50 years ago the same pre-1980s RW data which you now say is unreliable was considered reliable and complete enough (spatially and temporally) to validate the models by.
The problem there is, if the data is now considered unreliable, then so is any validation previously performed against it.
Variomatic said:
plunker said:
This isn't really 'climate' science at all is it.
Curious, then, that it's included in the IPCC reports as part of the WG1: The Physical Science Basis chapter 10.Cook et all also included papers concerning ocean acidification in their 2013 "consensus" paper. Admittedly the whole paper is laughable, but ocean acidification was, none the less, considered part of climate science by them.
It's a little unreasonable to disown the subject when it raises questions. Unless, of course, it's the narrative that matters above all else, including science.
Variomatic said:
plunker said:
Is that what they did then - split it into two periods?
I have no idea what they did, but that would have been the only appropriate approach to take to try and validate their model if the historic data is considered unreliable unless they had postulated the model and then waited several decades to obtain new data to verify it against.So, if they didn't do that, they broke one of the first tenets of modelling - NEVER validate against in-sample data.
Had I ever validated in-sample I would have (rightly) failed my degree, and that was only at BSc level. In fact, seeing as that's also fundamental in statistics generally, I would also have failed my statistics at a mere O level - it really is that basic a principle! So those with doctorates really should know better.
In fact, they probably do know better, if truth be told, but also know that the vast majority will simply accept "the model says". Sloppiness doesn't matter if the result is as you expect and no-one's going to question it!
plunker said:
Btw you expressed concern about the public being misled by science reporting in the MSM and suggested this 'pHraud' story is the kind of thing they should be reporting on - how's that working for you now in light of the main fraud allegation being based on a graph that uses data that is in all likelihood unfit for purpose and the story is now being echoed around the internets?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=What+if+Obama%E2...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=What+if+Obama%E2...
Variomatic said:
Interesting link, but I don't see much in the way of mainstream media in the results so I'm not quite sure what relevance it as to my point about the MSM?
Concern about the public being misled? No? Ok.Variomatic said:
That notwithstanding, the data being declared "in all likelihood unfit for purpose" by online opinion isn't really relevant. Its fitness, or otherwise, should have been addressed in the publications concerned rather than simply ignoring the fact that the data exists.
When real-world data exists in science, it's very much like a court of law: that data has to be assumed innocent (ie: valid) until someoone proves it to be guilty (invalid).
In this case it might (or might not) be a trivial matter to show it's unfit, but that doesn't absolve an author from doing so. Certainly, failing to even mention that apparently conflicting data exists - no matter how unreliable - simply isn't scientific.
I don't agree. It seems pretty clear monitoring to the standard required for trend analysis only started in the 1980s so the historic data is of no relevence to discussion of trends. I'm not concerned about not being told about the existence of useless data (or having it's uselessness demonstrated) in the slightest.When real-world data exists in science, it's very much like a court of law: that data has to be assumed innocent (ie: valid) until someoone proves it to be guilty (invalid).
In this case it might (or might not) be a trivial matter to show it's unfit, but that doesn't absolve an author from doing so. Certainly, failing to even mention that apparently conflicting data exists - no matter how unreliable - simply isn't scientific.
plunker said:
LongQ said:
Yet again plunker's training coach helps him to avoid the ball and go straight for the player.
Yeah straight for the player, apart from the stuff playing the ball. Or something.LongQ said:
You don't seem to have engaged with the ball at all - not even when I gave you a second chance to play it.
The sad thing is that Plunks seems to be quite a good player when given the chance, but his team's unofficial strategy increasingly appears to be player-before-the-ball. Bit of a waste of talent really
plunker said:
It isn't climate science due to the fact that it isn't science about climate. I think that's pretty straight-forward.
plunker said:
Variomatic said:
plunker said:
Is that what they did then - split it into two periods?
I have no idea what they did, but that would have been the only appropriate approach to take to try and validate their model if the historic data is considered unreliable unless they had postulated the model and then waited several decades to obtain new data to verify it against.So, if they didn't do that, they broke one of the first tenets of modelling - NEVER validate against in-sample data.
Had I ever validated in-sample I would have (rightly) failed my degree, and that was only at BSc level. In fact, seeing as that's also fundamental in statistics generally, I would also have failed my statistics at a mere O level - it really is that basic a principle! So those with doctorates really should know better.
In fact, they probably do know better, if truth be told, but also know that the vast majority will simply accept "the model says". Sloppiness doesn't matter if the result is as you expect and no-one's going to question it!
It's also NOT acceptable to use unreliable data for either so, if the older data is now unreliable, then any model either trained or validated against it is automatically invalidated by the use of unreliable data.
Which only leaves the data since 1989 available to both train and validate against if you (and Ferdinand) are going to insist that the older data is unreliable.
In which case, you can either train and validate the model against the whole 25 years worth, which will earn you a big fat F in any introductory modelling course, or you can split the data, which will leave you with extrememly short time series for any sort of trend determination.
As I said, exactly what they did doesn't matter because all possible options except for accepting that the early data is ok makes the nodel they used invalid or based on extremely short time series.
plunker said:
Variomatic said:
plunker said:
Btw you expressed concern about the public being misled by science reporting in the MSM and suggested this 'pHraud' story is the kind of thing they should be reporting on - how's that working for you now in light of the main fraud allegation being based on a graph that uses data that is in all likelihood unfit for purpose and the story is now being echoed around the internets?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=What+if+Obama%E2...
Interesting link, but I don't see much in the way of mainstream media in the results so I'm not quite sure what relevance it as to my point about the MSM?https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=What+if+Obama%E2...
"I don't like the person's affiliations so they MUST be wrong" is so logically flawed that it has no place whatsoever in any serious debate.
A possible conflict of interest is NOT the same as saying someone is wrong - if it was then every single climate scientist who's ever received a grant, a university position, or been published on the strength of their climate views is wrong because there's a conflict of interest between what they're publishing and putting food on their table.
plunker said:
Variomatic said:
That notwithstanding, the data being declared "in all likelihood unfit for purpose" by online opinion isn't really relevant. Its fitness, or otherwise, should have been addressed in the publications concerned rather than simply ignoring the fact that the data exists.
When real-world data exists in science, it's very much like a court of law: that data has to be assumed innocent (ie: valid) until someoone proves it to be guilty (invalid).
In this case it might (or might not) be a trivial matter to show it's unfit, but that doesn't absolve an author from doing so. Certainly, failing to even mention that apparently conflicting data exists - no matter how unreliable - simply isn't scientific.
I don't agree. It seems pretty clear monitoring to the standard required for trend analysis only started in the 1980s so the historic data is of no relevence to discussion of trends. I'm not concerned about not being told about the existence of useless data (or having it's uselessness demonstrated) in the slightest.When real-world data exists in science, it's very much like a court of law: that data has to be assumed innocent (ie: valid) until someoone proves it to be guilty (invalid).
In this case it might (or might not) be a trivial matter to show it's unfit, but that doesn't absolve an author from doing so. Certainly, failing to even mention that apparently conflicting data exists - no matter how unreliable - simply isn't scientific.
btw: that mis-edited quote tag of yours was a bit of a b
h to sort out! 
LongQ said:
plunker said:
LongQ said:
Yet again plunker's training coach helps him to avoid the ball and go straight for the player.
Yeah straight for the player, apart from the stuff playing the ball. Or something.
Variomatic said:
plunker said:
Variomatic said:
plunker said:
Btw you expressed concern about the public being misled by science reporting in the MSM and suggested this 'pHraud' story is the kind of thing they should be reporting on - how's that working for you now in light of the main fraud allegation being based on a graph that uses data that is in all likelihood unfit for purpose and the story is now being echoed around the internets?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=What+if+Obama%E2...
Interesting link, but I don't see much in the way of mainstream media in the results so I'm not quite sure what relevance it as to my point about the MSM?https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=What+if+Obama%E2...
I said:
Btw you expressed concern about the public being misled by science reporting in the MSM and suggested this 'pHraud' story is the kind of thing they should be reporting on - how's that working for you now in light of the main fraud allegation being based on a graph that uses data that is in all likelihood unfit for purpose and the story is now being echoed around the internets?
Do you see me basing my objection on the authors affiliations there? Kinda looks like I'm basing it on the qualtity of the presented evidence to me! This kind of selective blindness to what's being said to you does you no credit. plunker said:
LongQ said:
plunker said:
LongQ said:
Yet again plunker's training coach helps him to avoid the ball and go straight for the player.
Yeah straight for the player, apart from the stuff playing the ball. Or something.plunker said:
Do you see me basing my objection on the authors affiliations there? Kinda looks like I'm basing it on the qualtity of the presented evidence to me! This kind of selective blindness to what's being said to you does you no credit.
No, you're basing it on the quality of the presented evidence as arbitrarily decided by "you and yours". In order to object to the evidence (which, incidentally, is provided by NOAA for, presumably, scientific reasons) you have to show why that evidence is poor quality - just saying "it obviously is" isn't scintific in any way shape or form.In fact, the only evidence you gave for the unreliability was a brief resume detailing the sceptical affiliations of one of the people reporting it in the very next post to the one you've quoted. That was where you were bringing affiliations into it.
Variomatic said:
No, you're basing it on the quality of the presented evidence as arbitrarily decided by "you and yours". In order to object to the evidence (which, incidentally, is provided by NOAA for, presumably, scientific reasons) you have to show why that evidence is poor quality - just saying "it obviously is" isn't scintific in any way shape or form.
In fact, the only evidence you gave for the unreliability was a brief resume detailing the sceptical affiliations of one of the people reporting it in the very next post to the one you've quoted. That was where you were bringing affiliations into it.
Anyone who at least vaguely understands the subject could see the data analysis methodology of Wallace is flawed just from a glance at the graph. Firstly the period where we have high resolution, low uncertaintity, measurements of the trend doesn't agree with his trend in the same period - this is a warning sign but not immediate grounds for dismissal. The second problem is that this is apparently a graph of average annual ocean ph yet it shows swings of >0.3 pH in less than a decade. This is physically impossible. My guess is that it's an artifact of the measurements being taken in different places then compared as if they were taken in a fixed location.In fact, the only evidence you gave for the unreliability was a brief resume detailing the sceptical affiliations of one of the people reporting it in the very next post to the one you've quoted. That was where you were bringing affiliations into it.
It's not novel publishable work because presumably everyone in the field already knows this.
hairykrishna said:
The 'model' is a basic buffer chemistry calculation. It's not tuned to match anything.
So how exactly does that account for all the countless known (and, no doubt, unknown) bilological and geological processes going on in all those hundreds of millions of cubic kilometres of essentially unexplored ocean?Allowance has to be made in the equations for all those little photosynthesizing algae, all those crustaceans which are either taking carbon out of the equation to build shells or (if the scaremongers are to be believed) dissolving before your eyes to add it, any carbon that's finding its way into the water from vents (which are beginning to look far more common than we thought), and any other processes that either add or subtract carbon from what's going on down there, none of which can be accounted for by "basic buffer equations".
For a simple example: At least within limits, extra CO2 dissolving will increase the activity and carbon uptake by algae. This unknown amount of carbon will never need buffering, so must be deducted from the amount used in the buffer equations.
Only, we don't know and can't measure how much of the extra the algae will use, or whether it will vary linearly with increasing / decreasing concentration, or how much temperature will affect it, or whether predation by fishes will have an impact, so we have to come up with an empirical amount to offset the total by.
That can only be done by taking the basic model equation results, comparing what it says to the real world, then adjusting the "effective" amount of carbon needing to be buffered to some proportion of the total, in order to allow for the amount taken biologically.
Similarly, for carbon entering by "other routes" such as ocean vents - we don't know how much, but we know it's there, so we have to add some to the total from the atmosphere by comparing the model to reality. Otherwise we have an unaccounted input to the equations.
Note that any simple buffer equation based on partial pressures which doesn't take these effects into account will only ever be valid at equilibrium, and equilibrium will never exists in the real world.
And that is tuning, regardless of how "basic" the fundamental equations are.
Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 28th December 14:01
Variomatic said:
plunker said:
Do you see me basing my objection on the authors affiliations there? Kinda looks like I'm basing it on the qualtity of the presented evidence to me! This kind of selective blindness to what's being said to you does you no credit.
No, you're basing it on the quality of the presented evidence as arbitrarily decided by "you and yours". In order to object to the evidence (which, incidentally, is provided by NOAA for, presumably, scientific reasons) you have to show why that evidence is poor quality - just saying "it obviously is" isn't scintific in any way shape or form.In fact, the only evidence you gave for the unreliability was a brief resume detailing the sceptical affiliations of one of the people reporting it in the very next post to the one you've quoted. That was where you were bringing affiliations into it.
I told you I've read through the threads on WUWT and the input from FE - I recommend you read it too.
"you and yours"
FE is a sceptic.
plunker said:
You've got it completely backwards. We're told yer man Milke Wallace is an experienced hydrolgist - it's his job to do the required QA on the data he uses, especially if he's gonna insinuate fraud.
Errr, no, in this situation that only applies in CliSci.Mike wallace has simply drawn attention to existing data that has been arbitrarily ignored by others in presenting the consensus view. It's therefore up to those who chose to ignore data in the first place to explain and justify why they did so.
"Because we don't trust it and we prefer our model results" is neither an explanation nor a justification without demonstrating why they don't trust it - especially when they don't even go that far until provoked, choosing instead to publish as if the data simply didn't exist!!!
As for Ferdinand being a skeptic - that's the beauty (and, in some ways the weakness) of the skeptical side. We allow people to form their own opinions on individual points.
FE is undoubtedly more qualified than I am in ocean chemistry (as is Mike Wallace), so we have two relative experts who have a different opinion of the data and are quite happy to air those differences in public rather than b
hing in emails before presenting a Unified Front to the world. That's exactly as it should be in a world where the science is never settled
On the other hand, I have enough knowledge of computer modelling to know its weaknesses, limitations, and potential for (often innocent) misapplication. When misapplication of models becomes as rife as it has in climate science then the "innocence" of that misapplication inevitably becomes suspect. Not a single one (that I'm aware of) consistently matches reality with any skill outside their training data, yet they're relied on more than the data that contradicts them.
Which is why, when I see yet another case of "model disagrees with obs, the obs must be wrong" with no explanation beyond "must be" it kind of (and rightly) gets my hackles up!
Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 28th December 14:31
Variomatic said:
Mike wallace has simply drawn attention to existing data
Indeed he has - and THAT'S ALL.Variomatic said:
that has been arbitrarily ignored by others
That is an unsubstantiated claim and if you don't know the field you have no business making it.You should be more sceptical.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff