Guest post by Steve Goddard
Archimedes had his eureka moment while sitting in the bathtub. Newton made a great discovery sitting under an apple tree. Szilárd discovered nuclear fission while sitting at a red light.
There was a time when observation was considered an important part of science. Climate science has gone the opposite direction, with key players rejecting observation when reality disagrees with computer models and statistics. Well known examples include making the MWP disappear, and claiming that temperatures continue to rise according to IPCC projections – in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Here is a simple exercise to demonstrate how absurd this has become. Suppose you are in a geography class and are asked to measure the height of one of the hills in the Appalachian Plateau Cross Section below.
Image from Dr. Robert Whisonant, Department of Geology, Radford University
How would you go about doing it? You would visually identify the lowest point in the adjacent valley, the highest point on the hill, and subtract the difference. Dividing that by the horizontal distance between those two points would give you the average slope. However, some in the climate science community would argue that is “cherry picking” the data.
They might argue that the average slope across the plateau is zero, therefore there are no hills.
Or they might argue that the average slope across the entire graph is negative, so the cross section represents only a downwards slope. Both interpretations are ridiculous. One could just as easily say that there are no mountains on earth, because the average slope of the earth’s surface is flat.
Now lets apply the same logic to the graph of Northern Hemisphere snow cover.
It is abundantly clear that there are “peaks” on the left and right side of the graph, and that there is a “valley” in the middle. It is abundantly clear that there is a “hill” from 1989-2010. Can we infer that snow cover will continue to increase? Of course not. But it is ridiculous to claim that snow extent has not risen since 1989, based on the logic that the linear trend from 1967-2010 is neutral. It is an abuse of statistics, defies the scientific method, and is a perversion of what science is supposed to be.
Tamino objects to the graph below because it has “less than 90% confidence” using his self-concocted “cherry picking” analysis.
So what is wrong with his analysis? Firstly, 85% would be a pretty good number for betting. A good gambler would bet on 55%. Secondly, the confidence number is used for predicting future trends. There is 100% confidence that the trend from 1989-2010 is upwards. He is simply attempting to obfuscate the obvious fact that the climate models were wrong.
Science is for everyone, not just the elite who collect government grant money. I’m tired of my children’s science education being controlled by people with a political agenda.
not even wrong.
h2o273kk9 (19:32:59) :
“Move to Kansas…”
and since I happen to find evolutionary theory convincing…what say you now?
Not discussing evolution [which is a fact, so no discussion needed] per se, just pointing out that if you want schools controlled by another agenda than politics, Kansas is a good example. Schools should not be controlled by ANY agenda IMHO. Many will disagree and claim that schools should teach the values of the society in which they are located. This is hard to avoid and, as I said, many will think it desirable.
Steve that article was really disjointed, the ideas are mixed and unfocussed.
“There was a time when observation was considered an important part of science.” Then you referenced the MWP as being observed and your lead up was Newton under an apple tree, Szilard at a red light and Archimedes in a bathtub quite irrelevantly. I don’t know why you tried to use analogies or link it with observing the MWP because there is quite a bit of information over what happened during the MWP and if it was a local or global phenomenon.. that’s called scientific progress (the ability to interpret new information and judge its merit). I don’t know why you bothered yourself starting the article this way because it was very well presented when you became specific with your hills in the Appalachian Plateau analogy.
“Not discussing evolution [which is a fact, so no discussion needed] …”
Unbelievable! A fact? I’m probably with you in that the preponderance of evidence suggests this is likely correct and I am also an atheist who has no need for supernatural interference. However, the “no discussion needed” is just so AGW like.
Discussion is always needed if only to sharpen the arguments and keep the “priests of science” humble.
And your attitude is, in my humble opinion, just another example of
“science education being controlled by people with a political agenda.”
Just tonight, I watched a lecture about evolution where it was mentioned that Darwin’s justification for validation was the same model taken by supporters of “Huygen’s wave theory of light”
And we see how that turned out.
Leif Svalgaard (19:33:23) :
Why does Excel report is as so?
And Leif, once again I didn’t specify exactly the case.
And I know r2 is proper when using two random variables x and y. That is one place where it exactly should apply.
This is only a special case of high x series of year numbers with random y values placed around the tren line. The slope greatly dictates the r2 value. My x was 1000 to 2010. The y was rand()*100 for each. Plot x-y scatter. Pressing f9 (re-calc) gives you a new set of 1010 y values, but r2 is always very near zero. But if you add to each y value and increasing value as rand()*100+row(), you get an upward sloping line with random points around it and the r2 is always near one no matter how many times you press f9 to refresh to regenerate the data. If you use row()/10 the r2 is always right at 0.5, why?
The equation of r2 of course has everything to do with this behavior. R = Sxy / sqrt(Sxx * Syy). Still digging as to why in this special case this appears. (But this special case is the form most charts ploting yearly temperatures or snowfall take). It was a new view of r2 to me.
Sure you can. If you ignore all other factors that occur in the real world as opposed a model’s virtual world. Which is precisely why your models are so useless for real life. Interesting exercise, nothing more.
h2o273kk9 (20:10:40) :
Unbelievable! A fact? I’m probably with you in that the preponderance of evidence suggests this is likely correct
There comes a point when the evidence becomes so strong that scientists stop arguing [lay people go on long after that]. At that point, something is elevated to a ‘fact’. The wave theory of light is still valid [we still speak about wave lengths – e.g green light at 520 nm – don’t we?]. The Earth is still round, etc. As we know more later on, the facts get integrated into a larger and richer picture [The Earth is not a sphere, although it is round]. AGW has not reached that point, so is still debated.
BINGO! A sure nomination for quote of the week! It was one of the first things drilled into us when I was learning to be an ORSA (Operations Research Systems Analyst). It’s also the first lesson forgotten as we become enamored with our fancy toolkits.
More like ocean heat content being released to the atmosphere. And from there into space.
But go ahead, keep trying the Jedi mind trick if it makes you happy.
JLKrueger said: “More like ocean heat content being released to the atmosphere. And from there into space”
Heat content from the oceans “being released” would be called? Yep, find that word…starts with an “e”, and involves a change of state for water. And no, it doesn’t just go from there into space. It enters the troposhere, thus going from the hyrdosphere to the tropsphere via a change of state called evaporation. Once in the hyrdosphere, water vapor joins the other greenhouse gases in trapping heat at the surface.
Correction to last post: “Once in the TROPOSHERE, water vapor joins the other greenhouse gases in trapping heat…”
wayne (20:26:09) :
But if you add to each y value and increasing value as rand()*100+row(), you get an upward sloping line with random points around it and the r2 is always near one no matter how many times you press f9 to refresh to regenerate the data. If you use row()/10 the r2 is always right at 0.5, why?
Because r2 depends on the signal-to-noise [S-N] ratio. [is, in fact, a measure of that]. By dividing by 10 you reduce the signal [‘the trend’] so r2 goes down. If you were to reduce the noise [use rand()*10] you would restore the S-N ratio and r2 would go up again. Now r2 in itself is not measure of significance. It also depends on the ‘number of degrees of freedom’ [number of independent data points]. E.g. if you only had 2 data points r2 would always be 1, but there would be no significance. With a million data points, even an r2 of 0.01 might be significant. Another way of expressing what r2 means is that r2 is the fraction of the variability that is ‘explained’ by the trend.
Leif
“There comes a point when the evidence becomes so strong that scientists stop arguing [lay people go on long after that]. At that point, something is elevated to a ‘fact’. The wave theory of light is still valid [we still speak about wave lengths – e.g green light at 520 nm – don’t we?].”
The irony here is that this thread starts out with a pic of Newton. Huygen’s theory was heresy in Darwin’s time. Newton’s theory was elevated to “fact” except, of course, when it didn’t fit the narrative…Fresnel, etc.
The wave theory of light is valid when we are experimenting under certain conditions. The particle theory is valid under other conditions. Finally, geometic optics serves us just find in still other conditions.
Kind of like “Newtonian mechanics” vs. “Einsteinian relativity”…Mercury’s precession, anyone?
That’s just two!
So your “facts” may end up with a giant asterisk beside them some day.
Where we agree is that AGW “science” isn’t even close to being solidified.
“Robert,
Nice try. That wasn’t the question I asked.”
You do realize what you wrote is still visible, right? “statistical significance in the geologic record between CO2 and temperature.” Asked and answered. Game over. Nothing shreds your credibility more thoroughly than being completely unable to admit you’ve made a mistake. There is a statistically significant correlation between CO2 and temperature in the geologic record. Deal with the facts.
@ur momisugly JLKrueger
Most science involves isolating a variable in order to test it. Controlled, repeatable experiments rarely reflect the real world in every particular. The question was whether the theory of AGW makes testable, falsifiable predictions. It does. Your hostility to modeling is a different subject entirely.
R. Gates (19:34:08) :
Again, deep snow, more snow, gtreater extent, however you want to measure it has it roots in HEATING of the oceans.
Couldn’t it be due to the winds, maybe currents? Total world-wide humidity is always close to flat. The sun’s output is not way up last time I checked. So where is all of this HEATING you keep speaking coming from? Whereever there is HEATING, there is equal COOLING somewhere else; unless you are speaking of long year+ time periods.
h2o273kk9 (21:06:52) :
So your “facts” may end up with a giant asterisk beside them some day.
None of your cases overturns the old ‘fact’. Newer theories incorporates the older ones as limiting cases. At the time of Darwin, evolution was not a fact. He didn’t know the mechanism by which it works. We do today, and that is why today it is a fact. Undoubtedly, we’ll learn more and more about the details, but that does not ‘unfact it’. That we have learnt that the Earth is more of a pear-shaped distorted ellipsoid does not ‘unfact’ that it is round. Another example of a ‘fact’ is that the Sun shines from fusion of Hydrogen in its core. As early as 30 years ago, that was not a ‘fact’ and many solar physicists [including myself] were worried about that. Today the resolution of the solar neutrino problem has removed that worry and Hydrogen fusion in the Sun is accepted as a fact [Oliver and other crackpots not withstanding].
h2o273kk9 (21:06:52) :
The irony here is that this thread starts out with a pic of Newton. Huygen’s theory was heresy in Darwin’s time. Newton’s theory was elevated to “fact” except,…
Except it was the other way around… Einstein put Newton back in the game, and as it turn out both Huygens and Newton had a side of the truth.
wayne (21:26:52) :
The sun’s output is not way up last time I checked. So where is all of this HEATING you keep speaking coming from?
Wayne, there are people [even on this blog] who claim that the Sun’s heat is hidden in the oceans for hundreds of years and now and then surfaces to HEAT us, so perhaps that is where it comes from 😉
Leif
“None of your cases overturns the old ‘fact’. Newer theories incorporates the older ones as limiting cases. ”
Really? Which is it? Particle theory limits Wave theory or Wave theory limits particle theory?
Robert
“The question was whether the theory of AGW makes testable, falsifiable predictions. It does. ”
I want specific predictions. And Hansen’s 3 scenarios fail, BTW.
I continue to be astonished that there are people who have seen the graphs, read the news, and still doubt that winter snow extent has increased in the last 20 years. Look at the graphs. Look outside the window, Just look, and think and see.
Linear fitting shows that over the past 20 years it has been increasing by an average of 100,000 km2/year. Over the last ten years it has been increasing by over 200,00 km2 per year.
Are these trends a reliable way to predict the future? I’ll leave that pointless conversation to people who like to spend their time on statistics. I personally don’t think so.
Leif
“Except it was the other way around… Einstein put Newton back in the game, and as it turn out both Huygens and Newton had a side of the truth.”
Except that I offered that it was Huygen’s who was supplanting Newton’s “fact” during Darwin’s time…nothing to do with Einstein. No straw arguments please.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (20:30:22)
Scientific hypotheses can be elevated to theories by fact, and theories can have differing degrees of empirical content but a scientific theory can never ever be a fact. Scientific theories are about trying to discern universal statements from singular statements. The reason we do this is because humans are capable of knowing singular statements but are incapable of knowing universal statements. Singular statements are facts; they are things that you are able to state that you know because they have been observed. We can never state a universal statement is fact because we cannot observe universal statements. You cannot see the law of gravity; you can only see singular events which you assume are governed by the law of gravity. You do not know that if you drop an apple it will fall towards the earth; however that shouldn’t stop you assuming with high confidence that it will. If you drop the apple and it falls to the ground then you can make a factual statement based on that singular event.
Leif Svalgaard (21:28:07) :
Newer theories incorporates the older ones as limiting cases. At the time of Darwin, evolution was not a fact. He didn’t know the mechanism by which it works. We do today, and that is why today it is a fact.
_________________________
Whaaat? Darwin’s name is a household word because he did know the mechanism by which EVOLUTION worked: namely, Natural Selection, which functions through competition for scarce resources between members of the same species. What Darwin did not know was the mechanism that created the variations between individuals that gave some a competitive edge – and when that mechanism was discovered, Darwinism suffered an ‘eclipse’ as people jumped on a Mendelian-Lamarckian variation on evolutionary theory. It was not until population biology added to our understanding of how genes work in populations that Darwinism was fully reinstated, in the late 1950s. Even without that knowledge, evolution became an accepted theory (not a fact) following Darwin, because he provided overwhelming evidence — through hundreds of different observations — that it had occurred. (No stats involved in this one, either.) I agree with the general drift of your comments, though, especially concerning Newton and Huygens.
Simple explanation from William M Briggs, statistician.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1958