Uh oh another one jumps ship

[Wayward Son]

A long but interesting read by Orson Scott Card:

Meridian Magazine : : Print

 

[Bryan]

That is a great article. Science isn't science, and it isn't even accounting, if you're cooking the books.

 

[Bryan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiverBry
He said that there was a good lesson in this: in science, there is a tendancy to find exactly what you're looking for, even if it isn't really there.

That's true - and that's why it is reasonable to suspect the research being done by and for the oil companies that have an enormous interested in preventing a reduction in petroleum usage.

Trig,

Have a gander at the article Wayward just posted. That is more to the point I was making

 

[Thrillhouse]

Another great post Warthaug. You are obviously more knowledgeable on these issues (and patient) than I am. In the end, though, some people believe in the concept of "science" and others don't. Believing in science requires a person to admit to themselves that their own opinions may be wrong, and some people can't overcome that hurdle.

Very well said.

It really boils down to this I do not believe that a gas which comprises 4/100ths of 1 percent of our atmosphere is the culprit behind the obvious warming which has been going on since 18,000 yrs ago. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the earths atmosphere is so sensitive to gas rearrangement such that a lesser gas like CO2 can change the ballance of the Climate....just my opinion ...

Your opinion, not your deduction from experimentation.

Science wins.

Sorry.

 

[Bryan]

I think we have two different sciences going on here... one based upon observation and another based upon a treasure hunt for data that supports a desired presupposition.

Each side of the issue thinks the other side isn't doing pure science. Hmmm.

 

[Warthaug]

A long but interesting read by Orson Scott Card:

Meridian Magazine : : Print

Ahh, the old Mann vs. McKitrick/McIntyre story. You'd think that nearly a decade after Mann was vindicated and shown to be correct the anti-GW advocates would stop using him as an example. After all, this story is a perfect example of how science works, and why science is to be trusted.

Of course the article you linked to makes this out to be a lot more dramatic, with a hint-o-conspiracy to boot. Unfortunately, the real story is a lot less dramatic.

It all started with this publication, back in 1998:
http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann, et al. Global scale temp patterns.pdf

This article was the origin of the "hockey stick" graph, showing the dramatic warming over the last century. This work was considered to be an important finding, in which the relationship between our emission of CO2 and global temperatures was finally proven.

Then along came McKitrick & McIntyre (M&M). They went over Mann's work and found errors in Manns calculations (not in his data, or methods of data collection, as was suggested in the "news" article). Mann had not published all of his raw data, so M&M used guesses to proxy Manns data. Based on their analysis they published the following paper where they outlined their concerns:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf

In response to this Mann did three things:
1) He released his full data set, so that anyone could repeat his work in full, rather then having to base their work on guesses.
2) Repeated his analysis, using the corrections recommended by M&M
3) Published a corrigendum (correction) to the original article:
Corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries : Article : Nature

In which they described the error that was made, and explained what they found when they made the correction. to quote:

"None of these errors affect our previously published results"

M&M didn't like this, and continued to make extravagant claims about Mann's work - largely to news agencies as their scientific basis was nearly non-existent. However, politics being politics, M&M's continued noise lead to a full review of Mann's work, on behalf of the US congress, by the National Research Counsel and the National Academy of Science, along with three statisticians hired by congress. And their findings were very clear, that Mann's work was valid, as accurate as possible given the data available at the time, and reached the highest standards of scientific inquiry:

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Even a group of statisticians, hired by a well-known anti-warming member of congress, had to admit that Mann's results were "plausible", which is a scientific way of saying "no detectable errors in methodology".

However, the greatest vindication for Mann was the simple fact that other scientific groups, using different data sets (some including Mann's data, others not including Manns data), and different statistical methodologies, have come up with near-identical results. Wikipedia has a good graph comparing some of the more prominent reconstructions:

Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just one final note, the results of M&M's original criticism of Manns work has also been heavily criticized. But unlike Mann, M&M have not yet responded to these criticisms of their own work. One of the biggest issues with their work is that while Manns work accurately shows both the Medieval warm period and little ice age, M&M's results do not. This is concerning for M&M's work, as both of those periods are known to have existed, their dates are well known, and they are easily observed in the work of Mann and many other paleoclimaologists.

Its also worth pointing out that the only place in which M&M's results disagreed with Mann's was in the Medieval period. M&M's results also clearly show a "hockey stick" shape, including unprecedented warming over the past 100 years.

Bryan

 

[BTravlin]

Does anybody want to critique the presentation made by Bob Carter in the links posted earlier in this thread?

 

[ianw2]

Apparently not, BT!

The thing that bothers me so greatly about this back and forth is that it is detrimental to Science.

Real Science is an investigation into a phenomenon through experimentation/analysis that stems from a binary question: the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. The outcome is not influenced by the source of the funding for the work. Whether the outcome tends one way or the other is of no relevance.

The work can effectively be refuted by others through methods:

1) reproducibility of the data. If the data cannot be reproduced by others, the original data set was just an artifact and has no relevance. Therefore, the work is baseless and refuted.

2) finding errors in the analysis. If there are errors in the analysis which affect the conclusions of the study, the results are flawed and the work is refuted.

3) finding errors in the logic of the analysis. If the logic used to derive the results and conclusions is flawed, so is the work and the work is refuted.

Unfortunately, it is often easier/cheaper/more sensational to engage in ad hominim attacks on the researcher, silly attacks on the funding of the research, diversionary attacks using lies and falsehoods and the like. In this debate, BOTH sides have resorted to such base behavior. As a result, the public at large doesn’t trust either camp and Science, the public and the planet suffer.

As a classically trained scientist, I am very disturbed by the actions of both sides. I cannot look at any of the work for myself because it has all become so tainted with the fecal matter being tossed around as "science" that all of it appears to be contaminated. If I have become disillusioned by all this, what is the state of the untrained public?

I am afraid that, in this debate, Science, the public and our planet have become the ultimate losers in the egotistical quest for the right to say "I told you so!" This has become a disgusting travesty that is NOT Science; it is yet another dirty, political tug of war. Niether side will convince the other; nor will either side convince the public, now!

Ian

 

[ekremer]

a photo blog of really bad data measurment points:
Watts Up With That?: weather_stations Archives

a photo database project to document the data points:
Home

with data points like in the blog I do question the data.
BTW if you go back to the beginning he posts some rules of where these things are supposed to be placed.

 

[Lopaka]

the greenhouse effect is independent on concentration, and rather is dependent on the molar amount of CO2 that the IR passes through. As such, a column 10m long, containing 10% CO2 would absorb just as much IR as a 1m column containing 100% CO2, even though the concentration of CO2 is 10x higher in the shorter column.

I knew this beforehand, being familiar with O2 and H20 absorption band phenomenon for microwave frequencies. What is sad is that it is this far into the thread before a clear explanation emerges from the hysteria, anti-US sentiment, and the usual left-right antagonism. Please proceed with the discussion..........