Redefining the Scientific Method–Because Climate Change Science Is Special

LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2011 at 5:27 pm
“Makes me wonder why you would rather not go to a library and but instead write a letter to a university, put other people to a whole lot of trouble and then rummage through a whole lot of personal correspondence to gain some understanding of computer models.”
=========
I’m lazy.

squareheaded says:
September 3, 2011 at 8:
The IPCC is owned and run by the UN, an organization which wants to be the government for the entire inhabited world, by definition.
———–
To point out the obvious. Being a computer scientist does not give you special insight into either climate modelling or the politics of the UN as it relates to the IPCC.
Your IPCC beliefs derive from what you have read on your own personal favorite Internet blogs. The stories you read are made up by people just as knowledgable as yourself.
Just because you like what you are told does not make it the truth.

Smokey says:
September 3, 2011 at 6:43 pm
LazyTeenager says:
“Engineers should get over the professional arrogance thing. Its become something of a joke.”
You have it backward:
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6774/modelsh.jpg
—————
Well the graphic attached to the link is an ingenious insult to climate modelers. Should I conclude that it was devised by an engineer? If so it does prove my point about professional arrogance.
Or did you not understand that “it” my last sentence referred to professional arrogance.

It’s not just that the climatologists have their models too simple. The fact is that engineers expect their model to withstand reality.
Imagine if Boeing were to build a series of airplanes each based on a different computer model and then try to sell them to an airline saying, “these haven’t been field tested but we believe the average of the models might be correct”.

RockyRoad says
Have you ever personally run computer models? I have–thousands of them.
———–
Well you are a brave man to admit to running models here. Many here hold in utter contempt both models and modellers.
Supposedly its not possible to get a useful answer out of models and if models are improved in any way it’s called cheating.
I assume that you think that your modelling exercises are useful!!!!

jorgekafkazar says:
September 3, 2011 at 6:21 pm
LazyTeenager says: “Myrrh, the thing you are missing here is the concept of a feedback loop….From a modelling perspective it should be possible for the models to reproduce the behavior where an increase in solar energy retention by the earth causes an increase in CO2 800 years later..”
So the earth’s energy retention goes up without benefit of CO2 greenhouse effect, THEN the temperature rises, and, FINALLY, 800 or so years later, the CO2 goes up. If so, this proves…what? The existence of a chronokinetic greenhouse effect? Most amusing. Did you intend it to be?
————
Well I don’t think we need to invoke exotic processes like the chromoly Eric effect.
Here’s how I understand the feedback processs involved. Start off with an ice age earth. The known conditions are:
High ice albedo
Zero atmospheric water vapour
Relatively low CO2.
The wobbles on thorough space and starts to pick up more solar energy. But the amount of extra energy is not enough to melt the ice. The effect needs to be amplified somehow.
So the positive feedback loop to accomplish needed to accomplish amplification is:
1. Raise temp by solar
2. Outgas CO2 from ocean
3. Raise temp by GHE
4. Outgas more CO2 from ocean
5. Raise temp even more by GHE
6. Outgas more CO2 and evaporate water
After steps 5 and 6 repeat a few times we get to present day temperatures.
The physics based GCMs should have the capabilities to run, starting from the conditions of the last ice age, and be able to reproduce the 800 year delay between temperature rise and CO2 concentration you are so keen on.

Oh the boredom of the trite arguments …of course it’s not the models that should be disparaged but their asinine use as ultimative descriptors. Yawn.

LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2011 at 11:09 pm
“Here’s how I understand the feedback processs involved. Start off with an ice age earth. The known conditions are:
High ice albedo
Zero atmospheric water vapour
Relatively low CO2.”
Even in Antarctica in the dead of winter atmospheric water vapor never approaches zero. Those advancing glaciers that are the highlight of ice ages have to come from something.

LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Myrrh says
——–
? We have real data, such as Vostok and countless other studies, which show conclusively that CO2 lags behind temperature by c800 years – a real modeller disciplined in real science wouldn’t bother including it as a driver, let alone a ‘primary’ driver..
———–
Myrrh, the thing you are missing here is the concept of a feedback loop. Solar radiation uptake by the earth and CO2 in the oceans are likely part of a feedback loop.
And what you are missing here is that “are likely” doesn’t cut it in real science when referring to something that has no logic in reality because “feedback loop” is not proven re the properties of carbon dioxide and the great changes throughout the ice for the last 800,000 years.
You’re claiming that feedback exists (generic you re the models), but nothing in the data we have, a considerable amount of it, shows any sign of such a thing, CO2 always showing as an effect following great and rapid temperature rises and falls, including staying at highs when temperatures plummet, etc., etc. There is no evidence that CO2 is a driver of temperatures, and you and your ilk never present anything cogent to back up your ‘idea’, the imaginary “most likely feedback loop” irrelevant unless you can show it is relevant.
If you’re going to make such an imaginary claim the basis of your argument that CO2 is the major driver, you should get your generic act together. But you generic quite frankly appear ridiculous because there is no internal coherence in the claims you make – for example, this imaginary “feedback loop” contradicts the other ‘proof’ bandied around, that “CO2 levels haven’t changed for the last 800,000 years and it’s therefore our fault that the current warming is happening because we’ve increased carbon dioxide levels”.
Just to make this really clear. So what you’re actually saying in that ‘soundbite meme’ from the AGWScience fiction meme manufacturing department, is that there is no feedback loop.
And, the second fiction meme is actually saying that all the great changes in and out of interglacials for the last 800,000 years happened without carbon dioxide playing any part at all.
I’m really sorry you take such bull seriously.

Re models – http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
I think an excellent look at the role of ‘models’ in AGWScience re the thrashed out standards in forecasting.
There’s a lot in this and difficult to choose.., but that AGWScience and its models are being promoted as if they have an intrinsic empirical integrity falls to pieces on closer inspection:

ON THE VALUE OF FORECASTS BY EXPERTS
Many public policy decisions are based on forecasts by experts. Research on
persuasion has shown that people have substantial faith in the value of such forecasts.
Faith increases when experts agree with one another.
Our concern here is with what we refer to as unaided expert judgments. In such
cases, experts may have access to empirical studies and other information, but they use
their knowledge to make predictions without the aid of well-established forecasting
principles. Thus, they could simply use the information to come up with judgmental
forecasts. Alternatively, they could translate their beliefs into mathematical statements
(or models) and use those to make forecasts.
…
The methodology for climate forecasting used in the past few decades has shifted
from surveys of experts’ opinions to the use of computer models. Reid Bryson, the
world’s most cited climatologist, wrote in a 1993 article that a model is “nothing more
than a formal statement of how the modeler believes that the part of the world of his
concern actually works” (p. 798-790). Based on the explanations of climate models
that we have seen, we concur. While advocates of complex climate models claim that
they are based on “well established laws of physics”, there is clearly much more to the
models than the laws of physics otherwise they would all produce the same output,
which patently they do not. And there would be no need for confidence estimates for
model forecasts, which there most certainly are. Climate models are, in effect,
mathematical ways for the experts to express their opinions.
To our knowledge, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that presenting
opinions in mathematical terms rather than in words will contribute to forecast
accuracy. For example, Keepin and Wynne (1984) wrote in the summary of their study
of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis’s “widely acclaimed”
projections for global energy that “Despite the appearance of analytical rigor… [they]
are highly unstable and based on informal guesswork.”

AN EXAMINATION OF CLIMATE FORECASTING METHODS
We assessed the extent to which those who have made climate forecasts used
evidence-based forecasting procedures.
…
Balling (2005), Christy (2005), Frauenfeld (2005), and Posmentier and Soon
(2005) each assess different aspects of the use of climate models for forecasting and
each comes to broadly the same conclusion: The models do not represent the real
world sufficiently well to be relied upon for forecasting.
..
Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis (2007) examined long-term climate forecasts and
concluded that they were based only on the opinions of the scientists. The scientists’
opinions were expressed in complex mathematical terms without evidence on the
validity of chosen approach. The authors provided the following quotation on their
page 45 to summarize their assessment: “Today’s scientists have substituted
mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation and
eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality (Nikola Telsa, inventor and
electrical engineer, 1934).” While it is sensible to be explicit about beliefs and to
formulate these in a model, forecasters must also demonstrate that the relationships are
valid.

That’s all the models are, opinions expressed in mathematical language, passing themselves off as authoritative.

Does the IPCC report provide climate forecasts?
Trenberth (2007) and others have claimed that the IPCC does not provide forecasts but
rather presents “scenarios” or “projections.” As best as we can tell, these terms are
used by the IPCC authors to indicate that they provide “conditional forecasts.”
Presumably the IPCC authors hope that readers, especially policy makers, will find at
least one of their conditional forecast series plausible and will act as if it will come
true if no action is taken. As it happens, the word “forecast” and its derivatives
occurred 37 times, and “predict” and its derivatives occurred 90 times in the body of
Chapter 8. Recall also that most of our respondents (29 of whom were IPCC authors
or reviewers) nominated the IPCC report as the most credible source of forecasts (not
“scenarios” or “projections”) of global average temperature. We conclude that the
IPCC does provide forecasts.

And in covering up this lack of clear method and relevance to the real world, the above is typical, the constant generation of fudging.

A FORECASTING AUDIT FOR GLOBAL WARMING
In order to audit the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s report,
we each read it prior to any discussion. The chapter was, in our judgment, poorly
written. The writing showed little concern for the target readership. It provided
extensive detail on items that are of little interest in judging the merits of the
forecasting process, provided references without describing what readers might find,
and imposed an incredible burden on readers by providing 788 references.
..
Of the 89 forecasting principles that we were able to rate, the Chapter violated 72.
Of these, we agreed that there were clear violations of 60 principles.
..
Some principles are so important that any forecasting process that does not adhere
to them cannot produce valid forecasts. We address four such principles, all of which
are based on strong empirical evidence. All four of these key principles were violated
by the forecasting procedures described in IPCC Chapter 8.
..Using the titles of the papers, we independently examined the references in Chapter
8 of the IPCC Report. The Chapter contained 788 references. Of these, none had any
apparent relationship to forecasting methodology. ..
Finally, we examined the 23 papers that we were referred to by our survey
respondents. These included Chapter 10 of the IPCC Report (Meehl et al. 2007). One
respondent provided references to eight papers all by the same author
(Abdussamatov). We obtained copies of three of those papers and abstracts of three
others and found no evidence that the author had referred to forecasting research. Nor
did any of the remaining 15 papers include any references to research on forecasting.
We also examined the 535 references in Chapter 9. Of these, 17 had titles that
suggested the article might be concerned at least in part with forecasting methods.
When we inspected the 17 articles, we found that none of them referred to the
scientific literature on forecasting methods.
It is difficult to understand how scientific forecasting could be conducted without
reference to the research literature on how to make forecasts. One would expect to see
empirical justification for the forecasting methods that were used. We concluded that
climate forecasts are informed by the modelers’ experience and by their models—but
that they are unaided by the application of forecasting principles.

In other words, your guess is as good as mine.. The IPCC is expert in one thing, in presenting an illusion that the base is real science and that proved beyond all reasonable doubt, supporting ‘the deniers are genocidal maniacs for ignoring the models and consensus peer reviewed certainty’, but stripped of the bluff we have the above showing there’s nothing more than opinion hiding in a ‘cloak of science’ at the heart of it, couched in mathematical language to further obfuscate the paucity of any real intelligence, both meanings. And then they have the nerve to cover their posteriors while lying:

While the authors of Chapter 8 claim that the forecasts of global mean temperature
are well-founded, their language is imprecise and relies heavily on such words as
“generally,” “reasonable well,” “widely,” and “relatively” [to what?]. The Chapter
makes many explicit references to uncertainty. For example, the phrases “. . . it is not
yet possible to determine which estimates of the climate change cloud feedbacks are the
most reliable” and “Despite advances since the TAR, substantial uncertainty remains in
the magnitude of cryospheric feedbacks within AOGCMs” appear on p. 593. In
discussing the modeling of temperature, the authors wrote, “The extent to which these
systematic model errors affect a model’s response to external perturbations is unknown,
but may be significant” (p. 608), and, “The diurnal temperature range… is generally too
small in the models, in many regions by as much as 50%” (p. 609), and “It is not yet
known why models generally underestimate the diurnal temperature range.” The
following words and phrases appear at least once in the Chapter: unknown, uncertain,
unclear, not clear, disagreement, not fully understood, appears, not well observed,
variability, variety, unresolved, not resolved, and poorly understood.
Given the high uncertainty regarding climate, the appropriate naïve method for this
situation would be the “no-change” model.

My bold.
Magical properties for carbon dioxide, when it’s not being demonised as a toxic, [it’s not a toxic in real physics] and choose whatever parameters want to imput to create elaborate fictional worlds out of models.
Yes, definitely re-defining scientific method. And now we have it on good authority (NASA) that aliens are going to blast us away for daring to produce the dangerous levels of carbon dioxide as proved by these models.

The scientific method has been redefined for climate change to include: unconnectable anecdotal information, with the linch pin of global warming theory being woefully inadequate global climate models using dubious initial conditons. Rarely have past projections from these GCMs panned out; they are less reliable than flipping a coin. GWT begins at Mauna Loa starting in 1958. Everything else older than this must be ignored.
CO2 readings of 435 ppm were recorded in 1825, 45 ppm higher than today (Beck 2007).
Temperature data more than 100 years old must be discarded, because it would skew the warming toward normal or even cooling. This is the ‘homogenization’ process being carrried out by Dr. James “thumbs on the temperature scale” Hansen of NASA GISS. (ie: Orland CA)
Pay no attention to the GRIP2 ice core data showing that the CO2 increases occuring about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases.
Ignore the data 6E8 years ago showing CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today (GEOCARB).
Forget the 12C to 22C temperature band that the world has lived in for the last 5.5E8 years (PALEOTEMP) , showing that today’s temperatures of about 14.5C are only 25% off the bottom of the normal range.
Disregard the correlation between cosmic ray modulation by varying solar wind on global cooling cloud formation.
And whatever you do, turn your back to planetary mechanics, which is THE sole driver of climate
change. Planetary mechanics is the elephant in the room of climate change. CO2 is the flea on the elephant’s ass, and can only come along for the ride.