Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scott Adams, author of the famous Dilbert Cartoon, has challenged readers to find a qualified scientist who thinks climate models do a good job of predicting the future.
The Climate Science Challenge
I keep hearing people say that 97% of climate scientists are on the same side of the issue. Critics point out that the number is inflated, but we don’t know by how much. Persuasion-wise, the “first offer” of 97% is so close to 100% that our minds assume the real number is very high even if not exactly 97%.
That’s good persuasion. Trump uses this method all the time. The 97% anchor is so strong that it is hard to hear anything else after that. Even the people who think the number is bogus probably think the real figure is north of 90%.
But is it? I have no idea.
So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.
Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements. That’s a separate question. For this challenge, don’t let your scientist conflate the measurements or the basic science of CO2 with the projections. Just ask the scientist to offer an opinion on the credibility of the models only.
Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.
Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.
Then report back to me in the comments here or on Twitter at @ScottAdamsSays.
This question is a subset of the more interesting question of how non-scientists can judge the credibility of scientists or their critics. My best guess is that professional scientists will say that complicated prediction models with lots of variables are not credible. Ever. So my prediction is that the number of scientists who ***fully*** buy into climate science predictions is closer to zero than 97%.
But I’m willing to be proved wrong. I kind of like it when that happens. So prove me wrong.
Source: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155073242136/the-climate-science-challenge
He also tweeted this:
Climate Science Challenge. Find a scientist — just one — who says the climate prediction models are credible: https://t.co/SpJcVPcHmJ
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) December 28, 2016
Climate models are the core of the climate scare, but even the scientists who produce them know their predictive powers are weak. The scientists bundle model output up into an ensemble on the assumption that this will help cancel individual errors, but in doing so they make a very shaky assumption that errors in individual models are independent from each other, and that an averaging process will therefore tend to cancel them out. If the models all share underlying systemic errors, such as shared mistakes in their basic assumptions, bundling the models into an ensemble will do nothing to improve accuracy.
The following presentation by Pat Frank details some of the devastating predictive weaknesses of climate models, especially their poor statistical management of uncertainty.
Will any scientist rise to the Scott Adams challenge?
Update (EW) – turned the Scott Adams Says ReplyTo link into a hyperlink
Research starts with a hypothesis. The outcome of the study and credibility of its results are predicated on the clarity of the hypothesis.
Then enters the Null Hypothesis. This superimposes the assumption that the initial hypothesis is wrong.
Thereafter, methodology is developed that is designed to disprove the null hypothesis. If statistical analysis of well-chosen, well-measured variables show that the Null Hypothesis is incorrect, then the initial hypothesis can be deemed to be correct.
The hypothesis of well designed research is not “part correct”, and thus “part wrong”. The only two choices are “correct” or “wrong”.
All research should be judged on the basis of whether it meets these criteria.
“If statistical analysis of well-chosen, well-measured variables show that the Null Hypothesis is incorrect, then the initial hypothesis can be deemed to be correct.”
This is a muddled version of statistical testing. The null hypothesis is an alternative hypothesis. It doesn’t assume that the initial was wrong. It just means that if the null hypothesis can explain it, then you can’t affirm the original. And stat testing never says that the original hypothesis is correct. It just says that one alternative (the NULL) won’t explain it. Maybe other hypotheses could.
But stat testing isn’t all of science. Newton wouldn’t have understood what you were talking about.
Contrary to his famous assertion, Newton did indeed frame hypotheses.
The Null hypothesis is not “an alternate” hypothesis. It is the original hypothesis that must be disproven BEFORE alternate hypotheses can be considered.
Phil.
The null hypothesis is that nothing out of the ordinary is happening which requires a special explanation. So rather than “disprove” the null hypothesis the usual formulation is to have a reason to reject it, ie there is reason to suppose that something unusual is happening.
That is manifestly not the case with climate during the past 30 years, 60 years, 120 years, 240 or 320 years.
Chimp, two things.
1) The “null hypothesis” is only applicable within the domain of statistical inference. For example neither Newton, nor Einstein formulated or used anything close to a “null hypothesis” when they did their science.
2) Your claim that “nothing unusual is happening” is false. Sea levels are rising, mountain glaciers are melting, species are moving into areas once uninhabitable due to cold, and polar ice is melting. These observations show that the climate is not stable.
Rob,
None of the things you mention are out of the ordinary. That’s the point. There is no need for an explanation beyond usual climatic fluctuation from natural causes.
Glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age. Now in the Modern Warm Period, they are retreating in some places but growing in others. CO2 has virtually nothing to do with these natural waxings and wanings.
Sea level has been rising at the same rate ever since the depths of the Little Ice Age, in the late 17th century during the Maunder Minimum. The rate of rise if anything has slowed down, not accelerated.
Polar ice is accumulating, not melting. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains most of the fresh water on earth, is gaining mass. But even if polar ice were globally shrining, that would be well within the normal limits for natural fluctuations during the Holocene and prior interglacials.
There was less polar ice during the Minoan Warm Period. The EAIS stopped retreating over 3000 years ago. The Holocene is getting colder, long-term. The Modern WP has so far been less warm than the Minoan, Roman and Medieval WPs.
The ranges of animals naturally alter, following the normal centennial scale fluctuations of climate during an interglacial.
As I said, nothing at all is happening that hasn’t happened before in the Holocene and other interglacials.
Hence, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and there is no scientific basis for CACA.
Einstein most certainly did present an alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis, which was Newtonian universal gravitation. He showed that there were exceptions to the Newtonian system which enabled him to reject it and posit curvature of space time as a superior alternative hypothesis, which explained those exceptions.
Similarly, Newtonian mechanics were a successful alternative hypothesis to the prevailing explanation for the observed orbits of the planets. His hypothesis of universal gravitation based upon the attractive force between massive objects explained Kepler’s observation of elliptical orbits.
Shrinking. Cold finger syndrome again.
It’ll be zero F here tonight.
1) Chimp says: ” CO2 has virtually nothing to do with these natural waxings and wanings.” but provides no evidence. I believe that is called “hand waving”
2) Chimp says: “Sea level has been rising at the same rate since the depths of the Little Ice Age” but fails to provide a cause. For example, melting ice and thermal expansion are explanations of rising sea levels, but Chimp doesn’t mention these.
.
3) Chimp says: “Polar ice is accumulating, not melting” without evidence. GRACE says you are wrong.
.
4) Next you say: ” But even if polar ice were globally shrining (sic)…..'” you claim the shrinkage is “natural.” Actually, ice melts only when heat energy is added, so you cannot say the shrinkage is “natural” because it’s caused by something.
.
5) Chimp says: “There was less polar ice during the Minoan Warm Period” of course, I assume you mean that the Minoans flew satellites around the earth and took pictures of the ice right? PS….The Minoans didn’t have ice breakers, so I don’t know how you found that out.
..
6) Chimp says: ” the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and there is no scientific basis for CACA.” but I ask what is the statistical test you are using to determine acceptance or rejection? You see, you don’t have a clue about what a “null hypothesis” is…..it’s only applicable to statistical inference.
.
7) Newtonian universal gravitation has nothing to do with Special Relativity. Please refresh your understanding of the differences between General and Special Relativity.
.
8) Lastly, I will be interested in hearing from you what the ” prevailing explanation for the observed orbits of the planets” was prior to Newton. I think you need a refresher course in the history of science.
…
The “null hypothesis” is a product of statistical inference. Trying to apply the concept of statistical inference to Newton or Einstein make me laugh at you.
.
4)
Chimp says: “usual climatic fluctuation from natural causes.” Except you don’t tell us what the “natural causes” are. In fact you acknowledge that the earth is getting warmer, but you have no explanation for it. You do realize that things don’t get warmer without a cause. So, please provide one.
Rob – Chimp did provide an explanation, I am surprised you missed it. It is called Natural variation. It is the root of the Null Hypothesis. Alternate hypotheses are required to prove it is NOT natural variation.
The hand waving is yours.
For AGW the NULL Hypothesis is “Man Made/Anthropogenic CO2 is Not Causing Global Warming.”
The Data is the ice core and Atmospheric measurements of CO2 and temperature.
The analysis would be to examine if the past 150 and 50 years of temperature variation is statistically different from the previous 12,000 years of the Holocene.
When you do this most fundamental analysis which would be the starting point of any real “science,” you will discover that the NULL is not rejected. There is absolutely nothing abnormal with the past 50 and 150 years’ temperature variation, we are not at peak temperatures, we do not exceed the Minoan, Roman or Medieval warming periods. Crop yields and our quality of life is infinitely better with higher CO2 and a temperate climate.
Looking at the chart up-thread, from about 1913 to 1935, US temps rose from 49.7F to 55.2F, 5.5F. From 1980 to 1998 US temps rose from 50.3F to 55.3F, 5.0F. Nobody claims the increase of anthropogenic CO2 caused the early 20th Century increase, so how can it be claimed that CO2 caused the late 20th Century increase?
Seems to me that if one is creating a hypothesis for an two observed events, separated in time, one can’t use as a possible cause for the second event something that was known to not be happening during the first.
James,
Add to those observations the fact that for more than 30 years after WWII, CO2 rose steadily while global temperature plummeted, and one not only can’t reject the null hypothesis, but must conclude that the hypothesis of man-made catastrophic global warming was born falsified. Or reborn, since it had been hypothesized before, in the early 20th century, when any such warming was considered beneficial.
Chimp there is no hypothesis of man-made catastrophic global warming. Adding the word “catastrophic” is a strawman. Arrhenius never used that word when he formulated the AGW hypothesis.
co2islife, can you tell me what Einstein’s null hypothesis was?
Rob,
There most certainly is an hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. It has been in all the papers. Dunno how you missed it.
If it’s not catastrophic, then why is the world spending trillions of dollars to combat AGW?
True, Arrhenius and Callendar thought that AGW, if it existed, would be beneficial. But the whole sc@m of IPCC and its adherents is based upon the urgent need to save the earth from getting too hot, to avert all manner of bad things happening.
Which aren’t. So far more plant food in the air has been a good thing. More would be better.
Rob,
Essay on the null hypotheses of Galileo, Newton and Einstein:
https://byrslf.co/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-and-wants-you-to-be-happy-3189413d8cd0#.v67rxntad
I could add Kepler. His (correct) alternative to the null hypothesis of circular orbits was elliptical orbits.
And Copernicus, whose heliocentric system was the (correct) alternative hypothesis to the geocentric null hypothesis.
See how the scientific method works? Isn’t it wonderful? Too bad that CACA acolytes have abandoned a system that has produced such wonders since the 16th century.
Chimp says (with regard to the “catastrophic” label: ” It has been in all the papers.”
..
Excellent, please provide a link to one.
Chimp, you still don’t understand what a “null hypothesis” is.
..
Prevailing viewpoints are not considered “null hypothesis” when doing science. Revolutionary theories are not a rejection of the “null hypothesis.” When Einstein came up with both Special and General Relativity, he did not “reject the null hypothesis” he came up with a unique and creative way of describing reality which did a better job of explaining things than Newton could.
Chimp, you may or may not accept wiki, but please learn about the “null hypothesis” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#Origins_and_early_controversy
..
You will find that the concept of “null hypothesis” did not exist when Einstein and Newton did their science.
This reminds me of the James Randi challenge. A lot of money available to anyone that can prove psychic powers. Randi retired and the fund was still intact. I suspect that Scott Adams will retire before he receives an actual response.
There will NEVER be a mid-tropospheric “Hotspot.” The reason is very very very simple. CO2 has a black body temperature of -80°C. At 10km the atmospheric temperature is 237°K, and H20 is 0.06mbar. Doubling CO2 to 800ppm the atmosphere has a temperatures of 237°K and H20 of .06mbrs. CO2 puts in a temperature floor which has already been reached. CO2’s IR temperature signature in 13 to 18µ, which puts the temperature at around 237°K. Change the CO2 level to any level you want and you will see that looking down from 10km you will never be able to get CO2 to drop below that 240°K black body curve. The only way CO2 will be able to warm the upper troposphere is by changing the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, which it can’t at that cold of a temperature.The basic physics behind this AGW nonsense is simply missing. Doubt me? Do the calculations yourself.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
@CO2isLife,
I really appreciate your comments.
Thanks, much appreciated. You may like this post.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/how-to-discuss-global-warming-with-a-liberal-the-smoking-gun-files/
Thank you, co2islife.
This is definitely one of the best articles and ensuing conversation I’ve read on this site in quite some time. 6 stars.
+10.
Gnomish said…..
hi joel.
you know i’m gonna card you again for asserting that “Positive “proofs” in science are rare to non-existent.”
Sorry Gnomish, Joel is right.
You can prove that something works within given parameters [if you know what they are] but you can never say that anything is universally true.
A good example is Newtonian physics, gravity in particular.
Newton’s laws work perfectly on Earth and within the limits that they could be measured up until the start of the 20th century. Along comes Einstein who shows that Newton’s laws are an approximation within the more encompassing physics he envisaged [ who would’ve thunk it ? ]. So Newton’s laws are locally true but not universally. Then along comes someone else with a bit of deep thinking who says Einstein’s laws only apply to this universe, but not all universes [or something like that, we don’t know yet]
And so it goes…
lolz-
“You can prove that something works within given parameters”
wowza- you’ve learned that truth exists in context! *pats you on the head*
and you declare that positive proof is possible *sticks gold star on your forehead*
but after you affirm that joel was wrong, then you assert he was right?
see how that makes you an amateur? you’re not ready for prime time.
but i think you are sincere.
maybe you are even sincere enough to continue your studies. you’ll discover ever more and finer cognitive tools once you know truth exists. that is your advantage over joel.
truth or fiction’s glossary is a very good place to begin to get serious if you are serious.
oh- i forgot cuz it’s such a rerun for me – but for you i’ll toss in this unsolicited observation:
you said- without cracking a smile:
“you can never say that anything is universally true.”
you were completely oblivious to the fact that you asserted this a universal truth.
you were completely unaware that this was a self contradiction- which means it is a lie.
not ready for prime time, buddy.
how about “No matter where you go, there you are.”?
too easy, right?
but if you want to let loose with a real smackdown:
a single contradiction falsifies a proposition
sadly, that’s as far as popper was able to get… half way.
he’s not even an authority worth a fallacy
Gnomish, your problem is that you conflate the scientific with the glib. “Truth” is not the same as “proof.” It’s “true” to say “The sun will probably come up tomorrow.” It always has. However in a scientific sense, the sun never rises, and it NEVER has.
Not a new argument…
“I am a Cretan
All Cretans are liars”
It’s language you are playing with, not physical laws.
James Schrumpf
you are incorrect in all you said.
i perceive the basis of it is that you have no firm idea what truth is.
if i’m wrong, you can prove it easily by defining ‘truth’ in a simple declarative sentence.
then, perhaps, you might try to define ‘science’ which is the systematic pursuit of truth. oops…lol
and then you might explain how you can know anything to be true without proof?
and then you might comment with intelligence on the topic of epistemology rather than just licking the window.
these are all beginner exercises. have you mastered them?
GregK:
it’s logic i’m playing with – which is what proofs are made of. did you know that?
but you are just abusing language. you don’t really give any reason to believe you understand what you’re talking about. is it divine revelation that supports your metaphysics, then?
you are a Cretin. all cretins are lawyers….lol
seriously, tho- you would have to pay me to educate you because it would be no pleasure and such a chore – assuming it’s even possible to get past what you think you know that isn’t so. mystics are primarily useful as kicking dogs – but i don’t need one atm.
When I was in grad school, if the model did not work, we had to delete it.
I hope that Mr. Trump to take advantage of their knowledge which is confirmed by the work of Nikola Tesla and it will not be “stranded” in the shallows of knowledge on climate change that are based on stupid basis that the human factor is stronger than natural, and the natural factor is formed and the people .
I would ask Trump to explain when the main “culprit” of climate change, and in short, it is a magnetism that is a kind of “network magnetism” of the planets and the sun.
What man is so ignorant that claims that people are stronger than this overwhelming force produced by the planets and the sun, their mutual effect.
97% of apprentices have the same opinion about the causes lkimatskih changes. If you say that this is a consequence of human factors, we can conclude that before the birth of these experts epidemic of the mosquito zik, and therefore their knowledge so little. If there is anyone influential that it can draw the attention of these experts on the impact of natural law.
Climate change resulting from the mutual relations of the planets and the sun and its magnetic field.
I own evidence that planets cause the 4 cycles of sunspots from 11.2, and a diagram of the solar PLEG 123 years (11.2×11, approximately).
No, it’s standard scientific reasoning, we figured the temperature has risen similarly over the Holocene like 100 times, but this time it is different. Believe us, we know what we are talking about…..
Climate models are the core of the climate scare, but even the scientists who produce them know their predictive powers are weak.
v’