[OT] How science is not done

On Aug 15, 12:13*pm, yourmommycalled wrote:
On Aug 15, 11:43*am, tadchem wrote:



On Aug 14, 8:13*pm, yourmommycalled wrote:

snip

This last point is also addressed in NOAA's response to Tony "I'm a
fool" Watts self-published mistake ridden tome. Curiously NOAA showed
that all of Watt's claims that bad surface obs biased the US
temperature trends were bogus and that there is no indication from
Watt's own data *that poor station exposure created a bias in the U..S.
temperature trends.- Hide quoted text -

What Watts and his volunteers have in fact shownhttp://www.surfacestations.org/
is that the US data has serious data quality issues due to system-wide
station siting problems. Over two thirds of the sites in the USHCN
network are seriously flawed.

Station quality ratings (obtained from NOAA/NCDC) indicate that these
stations are subject to biases that will introduce errors of over 2°
C.

Class 4 (CRN4) (error = 2C) - Artificial heating sources 10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error = 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

These measurement sites are in direct violation of NOAAs
specifications for siting that are intended to protect data quality.
They may be useful for indicating short-term trends locally, but they
violate standards intended to allow cross-comparison between distant
sites, and lack of control of long-term site changes defeats any
effort to identify meaningful trends.

Bottom line: the data is ****. It is a collection of inkblots into
which one can project whatever one wishes to visualize.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

No Idiot watts hasn't proved *anything like he claims he has at all.
NOAA used ALL of the data Watts collected. Then using WATTS OWN
CRITERIA FOR GOOD STATIONS WHICH WERE MORE STRINGENT THAN WMO/USHCN
STANDARDS, NOAA compared the temperature trends from the stations that
Watts declared good against all other stations. Hey guess what there
wasn't any difference.

NOAA said their comparison was:
Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted
data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate
monitoring.

meaning they adjusted the good sites with data from the bad sites and,
guess what, the homogenized, averaged and adjusted data showed no
difference.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Aug 16, 10:02 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in
messagenews:l66g85dpedkrsb651t94god1k309q35l2o@4ax .com...

Second, I do have faith in the
consensus value of science, and in this case there are almost no climate
scientists (and an even smaller percentage of climate scientists engaged
in active research) who doubt that AGW is both real and of significant
magnitude. The weight of that many experts combined with my own reading
of the evidence forms the basis of my opinion.

No discovery has ever been made by consensus of opinion and Nature is not
a democracy anyway.

That is not the point.
======================
It's Peterson's point. He says he has faith in the consensus value of
science.
======================================

Nature doesn't obey scientists.
=====================
True.

==============
But the consensus of competent scientists is a very good way of telling real
competent scientists from cranks and crackpots.
======================================
Define "competent".
======================================
New discoveries, of course, aren't already known and agreed on when
they're discovered.
=======================================
You should ask Copernicus and Galileo about that. The very competent
Inquisition managed to deny the Earth was the centre of the Universe
for 400 years.
=======================================


But why is a new discovery needed to explain the
effects and sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

=======================================
Global warming:
Insolation, precession, Earth's great white spot.
When the great white spot (Antarctica) is in summer at perihelion,
conditions are different to when it is in summer at aphelion thousands
of years later (or earlier) as the Earth precesses. Water vapour (cloud)
is the predominant "greenhouse" gas, it reflects solar energy to cool
the planet and then rains and vanishes. Sunlight breaks through
and evaporates the ocean, creating more cloud. That's called
negative feedback and keeps the temperature roughly constant.
If all the energy that arrives during the day doesn't radiate at night,
the planet heats up.
Animal life on this planet has no control. Global warming is cyclic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...insolation.jpg

Why listen to chemists when astronomy explains the phenomenon?
Better to ask a chemist. See Tom Davidson.
Why would an incompetent dork like "Cloud Bait Observatory" Peterson
not know about the inverse square law, the eccentricity of orbits, albedo
and the reflectivity of ice?

Peak CO2 occurs AFTER the warming. Why? Warmer planet,
more forest fires. If the last warming 130,000 was anthropogenic
then it was caused by Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble breathing
heavily, and if it wasn't, what DID cause it?

How science is not done.

On Aug 14, 11:55*am, yourmommycalled wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:22*am, Dave Typinski wrote:



McIntyre is famous
because he and Ross McKitrick claimed they found an error in the data
reduction process of GISS data. Turns out McIntye, a statistician, and
Ross McKitrick made an error that even a freshman statistic student
would have caught. The error McIntyre and McKitrick made removed more
than 80% data from the data set. The US National Academy of Sciences
and the US Congress, investigated McIntyre and McKitrick's claims and
found them wanting *

which papers are you referring to?

Quadibloc wrote:

But why is a new discovery needed to explain the
effects and sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

Do we know with relative accuracy the degree to which each source
causes those effects?
--
Dave

On Aug 16, 1:28*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
" wrote:

Dave wrote:

I am arguing that if the raw data upon which scientists and
politicians base their analyses and decisions isn't made available to
the public, then legislation based on scientific evidence rests on a
weak foundation.

I have worked as a researcher for most of my life. *I am quite
certain if a member of the public were actually serious about
understanding an issue like global warming, they could obtain the data
when it was appropriate. *However, as any researcher knows, raw data
is of little use without the background and understanding of how the
data was collected, what the various errors are, etc, etc. *When I am
teaching a graduate student how to make measurements, my biggest
concern is that they understand the assumptions and limitations of the
equipment and the measurements.

I do understand all that. *What concerns me is the lack of real
discussion of those things in the media, among politicians, and in the
public's awareness. *Climate change is still a scientific inquiry, but
only to climatologists and other equally rational people--an
unfortunately narrow cross section of society.

As such, discussion of climate change, for the largest fraction of the
people on the planet, is more of a religious crusade than a scientific
inquiry. *That scares me, because their opinions--which will
ultimately affect all of us through legislation--are not based on any
scientific understanding of the matter, but upon what happens to
resonate with their preconceived notions about what is right and
wrong, what is moral and what is not.

It may not be science's duty to inform the public about anything in a
manner accessible to untrained, uneducated people. *But, it would be
in everyone's best interest for science to do so--especially in the
cases of climate change research.

So, I say this: If you or anyone else is interested in really
understanding the data, understanding the issues, then the process
works like this:

The first step in understanding any research is to read the important
research papers in the field. *This is what any graduate student does
and can take a year or more. *Then, once up to speed on the research,
if there are questions about the data, then contacting the authors is
typically the next step. *The authors would probably want to see that
an effort has been made to understand their work.

Makes perfect sense.

Raw data is of little use without the understanding of the reality of
it, it's a bunch of numbers...

Of course. *I don't expect this inquiry to be something one might
accomplish in a week or month. *A firm understanding would take years.



And as I said before, the problems here are not with the science, the
problems here are with the political process. *As long as lobbyists
and large corporations with hidden agenda and with ties deep into the
executive and legislative branches are calling the shots, science
takes a back seat.

The scientific process is fundamentally sound, though the work of
individual scientists may be in error. *The political process is not
fundamentally sound. *While you maybe pessimistic about reforming the
process, it is the political process and not the scientific process
that needs reform, openness, transparency, integrity,.,.,

If you want to understand the data, get in and do your homework, read
the papers day and night until you understand them inside and out,
until you understand the limitations and assumptions, understand where
mistakes might have been made.

This is how real science works.

Well, yeah. *No royal road and all that.

I've been avoiding it for years because I /do/ know how much work will
be involved. *I've been hoping that someone would publish a rigorous
yet accessible explanation of the current state of our understanding
of climate change, saving me the trouble.

So, fine. *I'll do it the hard way.
--
Dave

Dave:

I think you have hit upon one of the most significant problems of the
modern US. Many Americans are scientifically illiterate and many more
are just not interested. Often science and scientists are portrayed
by the media as somewhat odd people tucked away in the laboratory
working on projects that are beyond the ability of a common person to
comprehend. In my field, measuring the dynamic response of advanced
materials, there is little controversy, public decisions are made by
people with an understanding and are not subject to efforts to mislead
the public. And too, it is rather easy to explain what it is I do in
simple terms: I smash stuff up in a controlled way and measure what
happens...

Scientists who are actually involved in the climate research do try to
make the information accessible to the public in a manner that it can
be understood by someone with basic understanding and common sense.
It's in the science magazines, it's on public television, it's around
us all the time. Unfortunately we are also surrounded by people who
have other agendas, often hidden, who are attempting to masquerade as
independent and objective scientists but whose real purpose to promote
their agenda.

To discern who is real and who is an impostor takes some common sense,
native intelligence. Chasing the money trail is a good bet.
Understanding the difference between persuasive writing and
descriptive writing is helpful.

If you want to get an understanding of global warming, climate change,
etc, I suggest stepping back a bit from the most public media, that's
where you will find those with hidden agendas and a lack of
understanding and try to look at what the people who are involved in
the actual research are saying. There is no easy road to
understanding and knowledge...

So, to address your concern, the discussion of the science exists in
the media but there are many who would rather not see it and do their
best to confuse the issues. A bit of common sense can be very
illuminating. If you are looking for someone to trust, I suggest
trusting someone who has dedicated their life to the science, they are
the guardians of the future. Those who are interested in furthering
the profits of the oil companies, well, their motivations are quite
obvious as well.

Jon

" wrote:

Scientists who are actually involved in the climate research do try to
make the information accessible to the public in a manner that it can
be understood by someone with basic understanding and common sense.
It's in the science magazines, it's on public television, it's around
us all the time. Unfortunately we are also surrounded by people who
have other agendas, often hidden, who are attempting to masquerade as
independent and objective scientists but whose real purpose to promote
their agenda.

To discern who is real and who is an impostor takes some common sense,
native intelligence. Chasing the money trail is a good bet.
Understanding the difference between persuasive writing and
descriptive writing is helpful.

Yes, they sure are. Even armed with a best BS-meter, though, the
amount of fear, uncertainty, and deception surrounding climate change
makes it seem the single most difficult subject for those outside the
field to penetrate.

If you want to get an understanding of global warming, climate change,
etc, I suggest stepping back a bit from the most public media, that's
where you will find those with hidden agendas and a lack of
understanding and try to look at what the people who are involved in
the actual research are saying. There is no easy road to
understanding and knowledge...

So, to address your concern, the discussion of the science exists in
the media but there are many who would rather not see it and do their
best to confuse the issues. A bit of common sense can be very
illuminating. If you are looking for someone to trust, I suggest
trusting someone who has dedicated their life to the science, they are
the guardians of the future. Those who are interested in furthering
the profits of the oil companies, well, their motivations are quite
obvious as well.

Well, thank you. I appreciate your suggestions.
--
Dave

Dave Typinski wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

But why is a new discovery needed to explain the
effects and sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

Do we know with relative accuracy the degree to which each source
causes those effects?

Yes. And with surprisingly good accuracy too.

Fossil fuels are by their nature rich in the lighter isotopes of carbon
you can see the changing isotope ratio from burning them as well as the
increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the Keeling data.

His son went on to perfect a commercial paramagnetic O2 measuring device
to measure the roughly 20% O2 in the atmosphere with enough precision to
see the other side of the combustion equation at the same time. This
makes it possible to infer how much of the CO2 we emit is going into the
oceans. The results are consistent with the observed changes in pH.

There are two completely separate issues here.

What does the scientific evidence show? - and that is now pretty much
unambiguous. We can argue about the rate of change compared to natural
forcing, but even the scientific sceptics agree that obtaining energy
balance is impossible after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.

The more difficult question is what should we do about it?

I don't at present favour going beyond the no regrets energy efficiency
measures that will gain us at most a few decades of breathing space. And
I am half tempted to suggest screwing the planet to oblivion as quickly
as possible because that is most likely what will happen.

You only have to look at how industrial scale modern fishing destroyed
fish stocks in various parts of the world to see the future. Not good.
But I hope when all the chickens come home to roost no-one will be so
asinine as to blame scientists for not making the case for AGW.

It is *very* hard to make the planet completely uninhabitable no matter
how extreme the scenario. I have tried to break one of the models. I did
succeed in making the tropics too hot for surface life. And sea level
rises alarmingly if you melt all the land based ice.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:16:39 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

It's Peterson's point. He says he has faith in the consensus value of
science.

Only a fool doesn't place value on the opinions of experts- particularly
in science, where "expert" really means something substantial.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Aug 17, 3:20*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

I don't at present favour going beyond the no regrets energy efficiency
measures that will gain us at most a few decades of breathing space. And
I am half tempted to suggest screwing the planet to oblivion as quickly
as possible because that is most likely what will happen.

I think that's most likely what will happen anyways too, if our only
other choice is reducing energy consumption enough to seriously weaken
the world economy.

But there's a "no regret" plan B that can both seriously reduce carbon
emissions, and increase the energy we have available!

You have heard of it... it's called nuclear energy.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 17, 3:20 pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

I don't at present favour going beyond the no regrets energy efficiency
measures that will gain us at most a few decades of breathing space. And
I am half tempted to suggest screwing the planet to oblivion as quickly
as possible because that is most likely what will happen.

I think that's most likely what will happen anyways too, if our only
other choice is reducing energy consumption enough to seriously weaken
the world economy.

The amount of money destroyed by the gambling by merchant b^d******s in
the past year would have made a very good start on tackling climate
change without serious economic impact. And in fact creating a lot of
new jobs installing insulation and the like. We don't have to go and
live in caves, but profligate waste has got to stop. We aren't yet
anywhere near the "Save It" measures put in place during the acute OPEC
induced 1970's crisis.

There is no room for the gas guzzling SUVs doing under 20mpg now. A
decent fuel economy target for modern saloon cars is 40mpg. Mine does a
shade under 60mpg.

But there's a "no regret" plan B that can both seriously reduce carbon
emissions, and increase the energy we have available!

You have heard of it... it's called nuclear energy.

I support nuclear energy and in the UK it looks like it will get the
green light. I'd be happier if we could use fusion rather than fission
but that option is always about 50 years off and has been for decades.

I am pretty cynical about the wind farming industry. In the UK it
consists of spivs and speculators who get planning permission to put the
things up in totally unsuitable locations with inadequate wind speed.

Their purpose is to farm the grants for installed capacity rather than
delivering power to the grid. One fairly large one was offline for 2
years before someone noticed. The nearest one to me typically has two
out of three turbines feathered. I know of one good private one with
about a dozen turbine at Nissans works in Sunderland that is fairly well
maintained, but even they had a spectacular turbine fire closing a major
trunk road adjacent to the plant.

It is time for the scientific societies of the world to stand up and
make it very clear to the public that the AGW deniers for hire are a
bunch of charlatans. It is amazing how many of them also worked
previously to show that smoking tobacco does not cause cancer.

Regards,
Martin Brown