Re: NBC: An Inconvenient Truth


"SMBalloon" <smballoon@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:05en629gdt1pmbd390l3ncb2kqcbv4a5ru@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:07:23 -0500, "gumboman" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Is Mr. Derr a scientist?

Is Al Gore a scientist?

No, nor does he pass himself off as one. He's is simply reporting the
overwhelming scientific consensus.


Yet you have no problem treating a movie he
made as the gospel truth on the subject.

It's not the movie, it's the peer reviewed articles by scientists in
scientific journals, etc.



I don't know if man is
causing global warming or not. I suspect there is a good chance man
is responsible, but there is also a decent chance man isn't
responsible. I do find it interesting how anyone who offers a
contrary view is immediately subject to character assassination.



Who has assassinated anyone's character? If someone is paid by Exxon to
write a report that deviates from the scientific consensus is pointing that
fact out a character assassination?



I'm
skeptical when there is such a strong consensus about a scientific
matter that is so incredibly complex and not provable by scientific
experiment.

Not provable by experiment? There is a living experiment all around you.


It makes sense to speculate that man is causing global
warming. But it doesn't make sense to assume that the science on the
matter is so settled, that anyone objecting to the consensus opinion
must somehow be a lunatic or a person being paid off.


I agree with this statement for the most part. Can you provide one, just
ONE, peer reviewed article that says something contrary to the consensus?



I'm interested
in what you think of the information I've provided below from the
following link. I would think you would find this type of contrary
argument quite persuasive.


Fair enough. I'm on my way out and it looks to be long so I'll go over it
this evening and let you know what I think.



http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

Transtronics, Inc.
Is man caused Global Warming a Scientific fact?

I personally think it would be better if we relied less on burning
petroleum for several reasons. My personal belief, does not change the
reality of the science. While some things can be measured (see:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html ) it is my take that the
the claim of man caused global warming is really just speculation.


What do the global warming crowd believe?
They think that the man's output of CO2 is causing the climate to grow
warmer do to a "green house" effect.


Is Global warming a scientific theory or a belief?
There are many claiming to be "climate scientists". What does it mean
to be a scientist? I think it is agreed that it takes more than a lab
coat , computers. Science requires experimental controls - something
not found in a collection of statistics about an open system.

What is an Open System?
In real science, everything that can possibly be done to eliminate
other causes are eliminated. The earth's atmosphere is an open system
- no one knows with any certainty the amount of materials emitted by
the earth or even additions from outer space. An open system is one
where we can not control for confounding variables. The data collected
is fed into a computer model along with many estimates and indirectly
theorized numbers.

What good are the Collected Statistics?
Statistics often provides a scientist a good idea for a hypothesis,
but statistical correlations do not prove cause and effect. Here is
an example of this clouded reasoning:

There is a the high correlation between the softness of asphalt and
infant mortality rates. Some people would come to the conclusion that
soft asphalt causes infant death - the better explanation is that both
are caused by higher temperatures.

Elephants and Lightning
An engineer is out walking in the park and sees a wild-eyed man
hitting a strangely painted block of wood with a stick. The engineer's
curiosity gets the better of him, so he asks the wild-eyed man, "Why
are you hitting that block?"

The wild-eyed man replies with a bit of a crazed smile, "The sound
keeps the elephants away."

The engineer, now fully intrigued, digs deeper, "But why? There are no
elephants here."

As the wild-eyed man continues to make his noise with renewed vigor,
he says, "See! It's working."
Science reporting of correlation as cause and effect by the news media
as though it is proof causes confusion for the lay public - the there
seems to be much muddled thinking in climate news reporting.

So what is science? What is the Scientific Method?
For something to be considered a scientific fact, it must be testable
with the scientific method.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, that is
consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
theory and experiment and/or observation.

Real science is humble. Some things are unknowable. It is human nature
not to accept the idea that some things are beyond our reach of
knowing, but it is often the case.

Step 4 of the scientific method requires an experiment. An experiment
requires a control. What are the controls in climate science?

Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is
an experiment. A computer model can not discriminate theories into
true and false because it is not measuring reality. (Such models may
give one an idea where to experiment, but to claim they "prove"
anything is pure fiction and should lead one to discount the source.)
Computer models are sometimes used to simulate electronic circuits for
engineers - in an electronics circuit (which is a closed system) -
these computer models often predict behavior quite different from a
real circuit. If such a model is adjusted until the results give the
expected result it is often to the folly of the engineer. The proof
of such a circuit must wait until a real circuit is built: reality
must be tested, not a model.

To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming
is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans
- the venting of CO2 by volcanoes and geysers and other natural
sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a
estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain
of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?
Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically
real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely
thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples,
but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements.
What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is likely
responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this a my belief, supported
by a lot of data.

Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only
then can we start guessing about the future) including the
temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past
data has to be called wrong.
Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths
and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a
theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more
than looking scientific, just because things are measured to several
decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.
Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to
show no past periods of higher temperature. (This paper pokes a big
hole in that one. The idea that we know the inferred data is simply
wrong.) We don't have accurate records of solar output from the past
and we don't know the magnitude of long term historic variations that
are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be
the noise in the system) is much better accomplished with a solar
output theory - yet even this theory fails to be more than a theory
for those who seeking the truth. See
http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

Six, one really has to subtract the effects of variations of solar
output, and changes in land use (irrigation) from any temperature
trends. There is no way to do this with any meaningfully accuracy.
Four of the six above points have serious problems

I remember reading a news article when I was in 5th or 6th grade by
"scientists" that predicted that we were going into a new ice age
because of man made pollution. Here is a later one. I thought it was
true and worried about it for years. I followed every global climate
article I got my hands on, until I realized they didn't have any way
to truly support the claims they were making. Some of these same
people are in the global warming business now.

Supporters of global Warming will say, "I've know of hundreds of
scientists with diverse political backgrounds (from all over the
world) that have come to the same conclusion", but taking polls on the
opinion of people who's income is tied to the existence of a problem
is not science. A poll of PC (Politically Correct) scientists from the
year 1400 would have put the earth rather than the sun at the center
of our solar system. While there are quit a few PC scientists today
claiming to "know" that man is causing Global warming, there are also
other scientists that disagree, see
http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

A politically popular opinion doesn't make it correct. Neither poll
has anything to do with science.

Supporters will further say, "Many of these scientists are
established, world-renowned, tenured professors who do research in
numerous areas and whose jobs are certainly not dependent on the
existence of global warming".

But let us consider the peers of Copernicus; did their being
"established, world-renowned, tenured professors" make them right?
Would publication of balanced papers with out dire conclusions insure
their research grants?

Alternate explanations of average temperature changes
While the data does not yet show a long term shift that requires a man
caused explanation, other competing explanations would have to be
ruled out.

It is estimated that we are within 2000 years of a magnetic pole
reversal - there are ways that this could effect our climate.
We are mining many water tables in our ever expanding irrigation of
the planet - causing much larger shifts in water vapor than what we
see in CO2.
What would Richard Feynman say about Global warming?
Richard Feynman was a physicist, who was not only closely associated
with QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics), but also wrote about the
scientific method and scientific rigor. I first ask you to read his
bit about cargo cult science. Pay close attention for the part about
the oil drop numbers - and realize that it applies here.

When a hypothesis fails to explain the given data, it follows that it
must be abandoned. Non of the models I've read about can explain the
lack of elevated temperatures at higher elevation.

Feynman also became a bit of an artist on the side. This is important
because drawing depends more on being a good honest observer than on
talent. If you draw a picture and notice that the chin isn't where it
belongs, it is easier to overlook after one starts inking over the
pencil lines. What makes art truly art, is the discrepancies between
reality and the art. It tells us as much about the artist as it does
the subject. The way slight distortions are adjusted and blended in.
Being a real scientist means we have to bend over backwards in order
to find our human distortions of the object we are trying to draw
conclusions about. This takes honesty and courage to report all warts
and wrinkles in the subject.

I am told that, "... meteorologists I know that are skeptical about
global warming are weather forecasters (not researchers) and have
little expertise in the science of climate change -- their jobs do not
require it." Well if changing weather isn't climate change what is it?
Meteorologists are trained to look at numbers trends and graphs and
form conclusions about the probability of future events. They know
that seeing patterns in data can be the playground of fools (are there
any fool-proof computer programs that accurately predict the stock
market?) More importantly, a meteorologist's experience will have
taught them to be very careful about making claims about the future
with limited data. Perhaps this experience has given them a better
feel for what is knowable than the global climate researchers? The
"science of climate change" has been quite wrong before when they were
predicting a "new Ice age". Real science requires something that is
beyond the combinations of a bunch of estimates plugged into human
choice tainted computer models.

The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe
the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it
should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good
about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind
of standard integrity and honesty. - Richard Feynman
I just don't see anything about warming research describing the "whats
bad about it" part. Why?

Beside Feynman I've found another lucid voice from Caltech here.

Correlation does not show cause and effect - Limitations on what is
knowable
The idea that because CO2 has gone up and surface temperatures have
also gone up means nothing. It is a correlation only in the sense
that both variables are headed in the same direction. The odds of this
being the case are 50% A similar correlation exists between CO2 and
breast cancer. There is no cyclic variable in the global warming
studies. If CO2 had gone up and down 4 times and ground temperature
had followed - that could be interesting - but would only start to
mean something after 10 to 100 cycles. If CO2 had gone up and down
several times and global temperatures had followed there would be a
meaningful correlation, yet that would still fail to show cause and
effect.

We've been told that "The atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen 30%
since the Industrial Revolution (~1780) and 18% since 1959". Yes, CO2
has increased, and probably from man, but even that can not be shown
conclusively. In an open system It is entirely possible that other
variations of natural CO2 sources and sinks may be more responsible.
There could be natural sources of CO2 that have not been identified.
In an open system, there is no control of other variables, thus what
we can know is quite limited.

Atmospheric CO2 has (if I remember right) gone up about 60 ppm to 360
ppm (not much at all compared to the greenhouse gas, water vapor,
which averages 25,000ppm). Realize that we are talking about a change
of 0.03% to 0.036% or 0.006%. The global warmers don't use these
numbers instead they say it increased 30% (for maximum rhetorical
effect?). Over the same periods specific humidity has increased
several percent (possibly due to irrigation?) see:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/079.htm

Both CO2 and water vapor have similar emissivity so that any change in
greenhouse effect due to CO2 would seem to be swamped by the effect of
water vapor. This would also seem to explain the change at lower
altitudes with out effecting the upper atmosphere. But I'm just
speculating - I don't see how anyone can draw responsible conclusions
based on the data alone.

Atmospheric CO2 may have an effect, but there is no proof that man's
contribution as a source of CO2 (ESTIMATED at about 4% of all sources)
is the reason it is going up. It is entirely possible that it is going
up due to natural variation more than mans contribution - probably not
- but the point is that even this is not a scientific fact. I would
guess it is probable. (BTW I think we should be taxing oil imports (in
place of income taxes) for other reasons.) Interesting link

Low altitude warming has not been established as anything historically
out of the ordinary. The data just isn't there to do this. At this
time and into the foreseeable future it is unknowable. Being
unknowable is the heart of the problem with "climate science".
"Climate science" as reported in the press is not really science. In
real sciences the scientists first job is to prove himself wrong -
that is to list the numerous way that the results my be in error and
how the conclusions are limited. No forthright "bending over
backwards" efforts are made by the global warming proponents. Instead,
there are efforts to state things in emotional terms and a disturbing
pattern of data errors and omissions. When claims are made dealing
with an open system using correlations of data without knowable error
bands, it fails to be science. There is no way to separate out the
increased use of irrigation and the resulting increase of low altitude
water vapor (very much a green house gas). Could changes of global low
altitude humidity be a plausible competing theory? The correlation of
temperature and variations of solar output is ignored.

Clouds
The great computer models used to predict the dire consequences don't
have clouds, and for good reasons. Clouds are extremely complicated to
simulate. Water vapor tends to condense into water droplets at
nucleation sites. These sites can be a spec of dust, but are also
caused by cosmic rays, nuetrenos, and even agitation of air. Nuetrenos
and cosmic rays are not constant, they vary with solar storms and the
position of solar storms on the sun. They are also non linear. The
lack of clouds in the model reduces this to a political campaign - one
I would tend to support - but not at the expense of misleading the
public.

What is the difference between science and beliefs?
The key to separating scientific knowledge from belief is that science
can be demonstrated. We may never have good enough error bands on the
data about global temperature data; thus it is something that is just
not knowable. Opinions on things unknowable are called beliefs.
Because of the inapplicability of the scientific method when dealing
with open systems, opinions on global warming are beliefs akin to a
sort of religious view and not scientific fact.

Open systems, like the stock market are the subject of randomness -
and much has been written about the "black swan" effect and the
inability of professional stock pickers to come out ahead of amateurs
in the long term. To infer a long term trend in what appears to be
mostly noise - or randomness is a game of chance at best. All that can
possibly be determined are floors of probability in an open system,
and even those don't mean that much if one considers "black swan"
effects.

I failed to see even an estimate of the amount of error of natural
emissions of CO2 in the documentation from the EPA. The science I
know of means you figure the answer and then you do the hard part of
calculating the minimum, maximum, and probable errors. It is not
possible in this case to even have hard numbers on CO2 venting - thus
we are again not looking at science, but only estimates and
speculation. Attaching numbers to speculation does not elevate it to
science.

We are told that, "Carbon dioxide is measured directly at Mauna Loa in
Hawaii", but it is only one place and really an estimate and not a
direct measurement (can you imagine a pipe being installed to provide
a calibrate-able flow meter?) as are almost all of the numbers used in
this "science". How much CO2 is emmited from underseas vents?


Satellite data is extremely important, as it is the best data
available and has no micro-climate artifacts. The satellite data is
the only data that comes close to measuring anything that could be
called global temperature and not effected by micro-climate and would
be most difficult to fudge. According to
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html the earth as a whole
seems to be cooling or warming slightly depending on what level of the
atmosphere you look at.


But do you know what I see in that data? (And I'm really good at
looking at statistics) - NOTHING! Just some noise - noise that is
higher than any possible trend. You could pick selected start and end
points to show either cooling or warming. Take the long term
temperature trends and track them with solar output and there is a
fairly good correlation. Will the new solar activity of Oct/Nov 2003
change solar output and cause more warming? What are you willing to
bet on it? I wouldn't as I am rather certain that I don't know.

To claim as a "fact" something from a trend who's amplitude (and
direction) can be changed by changing end points due to the noise
involved not science; it is politics.

Are the data and/or computer models tainted due to subconscious
intentions?
Everyone has an agenda at some level. I am assuming that you, the
reader, is not influenced by the popularity of the idea of Global
warming and you have really looked at the raw data yourself and made
sure that no one was hand picking start and endpoints of data sets and
that non of these people worried (even subconsciously) that if they
failed to show the right result they would fail to get new funding.

It is interesting that the only corrections I have seen with the
global warming proponents have lessened the effect. Were the errors
reported in "Energy and Environment" 11/03 the result of fudging the
numbers? (This link has been pulled - due to political pressure? if
you have an update to this link please send it this way) I hope not,
but they very well could have been from a subconscious hope. A
scientist's first job is to prove himself wrong. That isn't the way I
see this work approached.

Let me illustrate: QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) is real science. The
theory was put in place and then controlled experiments were run
against it - the theory wasn't changed every time someone came out
with a new test. This is what real science is about.

With global warming you have a computer model of the largest physical
system on earth that has several uncontrolled inputs with huge error
bands that can interact in non linear ways. The model is simplified in
many ways because of the limits of computer power. You have emotional
humans that decide on just what compromises to make - and these
choices can greatly skew the results. Just the shear number of terms
makes the output dubious at best.

More about Elephants
There is a famous saying in physics:

``Give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me five and
I can wag its tail''
(The source of the above quote?? Variants of the statement have been
attributed to C.F. Gauss, Niels Bohr, Lord Kelvin, Enrico Fermi.)

When one considers that these models may have parameters that number
in the tens to hundreds and are only growing in size, the possibility
of generating meaningful computer models is a fantasy.


Are the Global Warmers intellectually honest?
I do believe that there are people writing global warming papers who
just don't understand the true nature of scientific induction and
deduction and are just honestly wrong. My work with electronic
circuits modeled on computers has convinced me that even the most
honest scientists are quite susceptible to subconsciously tailoring
computer models to provide the results one wants (I've fooled myself),
(and electronics models are much simpler and easier to test in the
closed system of a test bench). Yet these models are the basis for
claims that would completely change the world economy? This "bending
over backward" that Feynman talks about is what is missing from the
global warming work.
I worry that a pattern of tweaked data and hyperbolic press releases
related to this subject.

http://www.climate2003.com shows possibly fudged data. Nice page at
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

The much hyped report from the EPA was made by people who's income
depends on the continued belief of a CO2 caused warming trend. What
do people who do not depend on there being a "global warming" problem
say? The meteorologists I've met (that don't have a political or
economic ax-to-grind), say that the only thing they have seen that is
close to a proved theory is that global temperature tracks solar
output. As scientists, they should be careful to wait a few more
solar cycles before even taking that to heart.

The EPA's reference even lists Santer, who's 1996 Nature article using
a data set with fudged endpoints.

To make these claims without real science behind it also raises a
moral problem, as the unintended consequences may be harsh on the poor
people of non developed countries.

I truly wish Richard Feynman was alive to day to comment on the
scientific vigor in global warming. Research can often look like
science, yet fail to be real science in the end.

Beware of Regressions - Polynomial and Otherwise: they can fool you
Back when punch cards ran the world they called it dynamic programing,
You would vary all the coefficients of an equation via nested loops
until the equation would produce the data with some amount of
accuracy. It is a useful tool to help tease out hypotheses from data.

Once it works on past history and predicts the set of data it is
tempting to think it means something. To really test it, you have to
run it and make predictions to be tested with experiment. If the
prediction is complex (ie. wave forms) and matches we can assign a
confidence. Of course if all we have is a trend - there is only a
50:50 chance that it means anything. The idea that once it predicts
the past it will also predict the future is just wrong. If on the
other hand, they froze the computer model and collected data over
several solar cycles and then ran the model, - over several such runs,
we could start to attach a probability of the model's output being
predictive.


Emistivity and the so called "greenhouse effect"
The above heading is not yet written - but will talk of the absorption
of one frequency and emission of IR and to confusion caused by the
misuse of this term. Unfortunately, this is not a easy subject to
write about for the lay public.

More global warming links:

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

http://www.sitewave.net/news/

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67


Relevant Quotes
Religion provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute
certainty that they know the unknowable.

True wisdom is knowing how little we know for certain

And a new, real, and much more serious greenhouse gas threat here.

(end)



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Globaloney elsewhere
    ... any way similar to the present scientific standing for global warming is ... "science" is politically motivated junk science IMO and I refuse to ... Another poor game of the whipped by the facts crowd is to try to play ... we invoke the aid of the scientists and Al Gore instead. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: That crashing sound...
    ... And if you are a vigilant observer of the global warming debate, you know how inconveniently cold it is in the Arctic this winter for Al Gore and his army of climate alarmists. ... Granting a long overdue forum to noted dissenting scientists, economists and policy experts from around the world, the Heartland Institute-sponsored symposium at the Marriott Marquis offered welcomed reasoned analysis as alternative to last December's hysterical circus which was Bali. ... Even before the first mention was made of activists and media misrepresenting current climate science while completely ignoring the serious inaccuracies in virtually all IPCC documents at Sunday's opening dinner, alarmist groups were busy marginalizing the event. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
    ... The scientific debate about whether there is a global warming problem is ... effects of CO2) you're bucking logic and sense. ... "A leading international group of climate scientists reported last ... Science DOES NOT PROVE THINGS. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
    ... The scientific debate about whether there is a global warming problem is ... effects of CO2) you're bucking logic and sense. ... "A leading international group of climate scientists reported last ... Science DOES NOT PROVE THINGS. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: NBC: An Inconvenient Truth
    ... But it doesn't make sense to assume that the science on the ... Is man caused Global Warming a Scientific fact? ... They think that the man's output of CO2 is causing the climate to grow ... There are many claiming to be "climate scientists". ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)