Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 Next
Comments 46551 to 46600:
-
BillEverett at 03:16 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
A brief comment on models in relation to the scientific method. First, there are big theories with names, etc., and there are little theories. Each theory is an expression of our understanding of how a part of the observable "real" world works. Big theories explain a reasonably large part; small theories explain a small part. Hypotheses or conjectures are "reasonable" proposed amendments to a theory.
A theory can be stated in words. A theory stated only in words is rather imprecise and open to multiple interpretations. A better statement of a theory is a mathematical equation (or system of equations) relating quantities representing measurable aspects (observables) of the world. Some equations are exactly solvable (analytically). Many equations are not exactly solvable. Many different techniques of numerical analysis have been developed (and are currently being developed) to deal with equations that are not exactly solvable. The large majority of contemporary numerical methods involve "computer simulation" approaches, and there are many different computer simulation techniques. (All the preceding statements about equations apply equally to systems of equations.) Hard science is not interested in imprecise theories that are open to multiple interpretations. Hard science is interested in precisely stated unambiguous theories, which means mathematical equations relating quantities that represent observables.
In this context, "theory" and "model" are essentially synonyms. The theory (model) is not the words we use to discuss or describe it. The theory (model) is the equations and the operational definitions of the measurable quantities involved in those equations.
-
shoyemore at 02:57 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Kevin #31,
Ray did not say "surface warming". He said "climate change", and climate can be influenced in many directions when it comes to a range of phenomena.
Phil's chart (#37) shows that climate change is a multi-factor process, of which the human contribution is only one.
Ray was unaware of this, exposing his lack of understanding ... a strange lack for a scientist who (one would have expected) have examined the evidence for what he was propounding.
Phil actually summarises it very well. Human factors may dominate (that is the claim Ray should have been discussing), but there are other influences.
Moderator Response:[RH] All further discussion of "human contribution" needs to be taken to a more appropriate thread.
-
MA Rodger at 02:25 AM on 2 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
nealjking @88
It is entirely evident from your comment @76, @78 & @88 that the position you took @67 & @70 refers solely to the evaluation of forcing ΔF. I have not been at any time suggesting that Stephan-Boltzmann is so used, proposing rather that it is applicable (and indeed I have show it has been applied) to calculate zero-feedback-sensitivity λo.
So I shall end this interchange here although I shall be now to enquiing elsewhere as to the nature of those "models" reportedly used to calculate λo and report back if I glean any findings. -
barry1487 at 02:21 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
I kind of get what CN is saying. We have no 'need' to work out how the universe began, nor is the the matter a 'problem' that requires us to solve it. We ask because we are curious.
1. Define a question that may be answered analytically.
-
Bob Lacatena at 02:00 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate Newbie, 40,
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think you're being a bit pedantic. So if we rephrase it are you happier?
- Define a question that needs an answer;
- Formulate an explanation for the situation;
- Determine or deduce a prediction based on the explanation;
- Perform tests or experiments to see if the explanation is valid.
-
Kevin8233 at 01:56 AM on 2 April 2013Book review: Cold Cash, Cool Climate by Jonathan Koomey
Koomey also suggests a higher-level approach that he’s found particularly effective:
If you hear someone using such talking points, try asking the speaker these questions: “Do you feel qualified to judge the current findings of the science on combustion, or gravity, or quantum physics? No? Why then do you opine on a topic that is equally complex but upon which you have no more mastery? Why do you think your judgment on these complex issues is the equal of that of people who have studied the topic for decades?”
Typically the speaker will reply with some statement of authority, like “I’ve studied engineering for years”, or “I’m a weather forecaster”, or “my uncle Joe the physicist said so”. Such responses are beside the point. Unless the speaker is an expert in the field, their opinions should be given no more weight than any other uninformed observer. Would you ask your allergist about the heart surgery your cardiologist recommends?
Given the above advice, it is difficult to reconcile with other quotes found on this site;
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it." Richard Feynman
or
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman
or
Kevin C at 00:44 AM on 23 March, 2013
If it does not have the same title (or has revisions), then presumably the recursive fury paper will need to be withdrawn?
Papers are not retracted for requiring minor clarifications, or even for being subsequently shown to be completely wrong. Papers are retracted for serious misconduct or fraud.
So the author wants us to trust the experts only. But Feynman says to trust the experiments, and that experts can be wrong.
Kevin C has pointed out that even peer reviewed papers can be wrong, and not withdrawn.
So obviously, the answer is not that simple.
-
Bob Lacatena at 01:51 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate Newbie, 37,
Many people misapply that Feynman quote. You might want to look at what I wrote about it a few years ago (after taking the time to put the quote into context by reading the entire speech from which it came, and recognizing the audience and goal of that speech).
-
Climate Newbie at 01:45 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
My own point of view is that the four step process outlined above is a better definition of engineering than science. My main beef is with the first step. Science is not about solving problems, it is about answering questions. When one presumes the existence of a problem, there is already an inherent bias toward prescibing a solution. Real science must start with the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. If that knowledge identifies problems, and possible solutions, that's wonderful, but that is not the essence of science.
Moderator Response: [JH] Your prior post was deleted because you provided no context for your quote. -
KR at 01:44 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate Newbie - "...if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong"
Indeed. With that in mind, it's interesting to see how 'skeptic' predictions fare against the IPCC (skeptic predictions fare poorly). Raymond Pierrehumbert discusses some successful predictions here, and there's an interesting overview of successful climate model predictions - dating back to Arrhenius. Not to mention that has theory has repeatedly proved out over initial (incorrect) measures such as the UAH temperatures.
'Skeptic' predictions, whether of temperature, Arctic ice, or pretty much anything else? They don't fare very well against the data; they are (so far, at least) wrong.
-
Climate Newbie at 01:05 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman
Moderator Response: [JH} Posting quotes without providing context is skating on the thin ice of sloganeering. Please cease and desist. -
Climate Newbie at 01:02 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
[Science] is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. ... The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.
— Carl Sagan -
nealjking at 00:58 AM on 2 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
MA Rodger:
The fact that a back-of-the-envelope calculation happens to roughly match another roughly defined quantity does not give a good basis for concluding that that calculation is a valid explanation for the quantity. The linkage has to be shown by the relevant physics, some portion of which I have explained.
Based on what has already been discussed, the formula would match if:
- The entire infrared spectrum were covered by GHG bands (which it is NOT); AND
- The absorption coefficient were a constant function over that range (which it is also NOT).
Since in actual fact, neither are true, there is no applicability of this "derivation" to the EGHE. Don't fall into the freshman's fallacy of finding just some random formula that happens to give the right answer for some lucky combination and assuming that this explains the physics. It doesn't.
If you really want to understand what is going on in a fairly complicated problem like this, you're better off looking to see what people have done, rather than cooking your own explanation. Riccardo's article referenced in #85 would be a good starting point. Beyond that, I have mentioned books by Houghton, Pierrehumbert; and there is probably a paper in Archer's collection of "warming papers". Try looking for these sources before rolling your own. My impression is that the formula didn't get general agreement untiil the 1960's or so; about 100 years after the GHE was conceived. Why do you think the explanation is going to be as simple as that?
-
Phil at 00:10 AM on 2 April 2013The Scientific Method
The image below is taken from the SKS article Kevin quotes, and clearly show both natural and anthropogenic contributions to global warming.
Ray's point
I... have yet to be convinced that climate change is caused only by humans.
Is clearly valid when talking about climate change in general, but incorrect when talking about the specific instance of the climate change that is happening now, where have anthropogenic contributions have been shown to predominmate.
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width. -
Tom Curtis at 23:59 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray @27, I don't think it is fair to Lakatos to say that is work "followed on" from Kuhn. It would be better to say that it "followed on" from Popper (whose student Lakatos was), differing from Popper almost exclusively in properly accounting for the Duhem-Quine thesis. Despite that, both Kuhn and Lakatos recognized the remarkable similarities of their theories. Indeed, both agreed that where it not for one issue, they would be essentially the same theory. That issue was "incomensurability", Kuhn's thesis that paradigms could not be understood from within the framework of competing paradigms. Lakatos rightly rejected that thesis as irrational, and clearly false.
The problem is, it is that thesis, and only that thesis that you appear to have drawn from Kuhn. You have flushed away all that is valuable in Kuhn, and retained only the dross. The simple fact is that if "paradigms"/"scientific research programs" are not incomesurable (as Kuhn would have it), then an acceptor of one paradigm can recognize what is valuable and what is dross in another paradigm. Given that, while there may be biases against unpopular or improbable theories, these biases will be a consequence of the fact that scientists are human and have human emotions. They will not be systemic, and they will not preclude original or valuable advances with any merit.
Indeed, the history of climate science shows that climate scientists are willing to try any theory that shows minimum plausibility. The extent of funding for research into Svenmarks theory of climate modulation by cosmic rays shows climate scientists do not, in general, supress rival theories.
Unfortunately the authors of those rival theories are not so generous. They appear to want their theories to be accepted without first meeting the tedious requirement of empirical confirmation that has been met by the standard theory. Indeed, the only epistomological bar placed on alternate theories is not empirical success, but only that it be "anything but CO2".
-
MA Rodger at 23:46 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
nealjking @78.
I shall be less cryptic than @77.
The forcing ΔF resulting from ΔCO2 is not at issue. As TAR describes this relationship can be presented usefully in its simplest form thus:-
ΔF = 5.35 In(C/Co) W/sq m
The issue at hand concerns only the global temperature change ΔT resulting from ΔF and specifically that change when feedbacks are zero. I have no definitive reference to state what method is used within climatology to calculate that value. Yet they do calculate it and do so with far more precision than ΔT with all feedbacks (as the relative imprecision of ECS estimates shows).
So what is that method?
(a) It is a "relatively straightforward" calculation according to AR4 so we seek nothing fancy.
(b) It yields a number "1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%)" (although that is for 4 Wm^-2) according to TAR.
(c) I recall from years ago many references saying it was calculated using the Stephan-Boltzmann equation but today I see nothing definitive to point you at.
(d) I do not recall seeing any alternative method for this calculation.
(e) And (bar internet searches topping out with a denialist force →100% Watts/sq page) I do find climatologists saying Stephan-Bortzmann provides a zero-feedback ΔT, eg Roe & Baker using it to calculate zero-feedback-sensitivity λo. Particulalry note Chris Colose posting at RealClimate who describes such a use of Stephan-Boltzmann as a 'back-of-envelope calculating' yielding λo=0.27°C/Wm^-2 while models yield λo=0.30-0.31°C/Wm^-2 or "about ~1.2°C" for double CO2.
Thus I can but conclude that Stephan-Boltzmann is applicable in the context of the enhanced greenhouse effect. And that it does yield a reasonable answer (ie. of 'about 1°C' which is what is commonly quoted). And while "models" are used to improve accuracy, Stephan-Boltzmann does a pretty good job without recourse to those "models" which is so often the point of departure for folk of a denialist disposition, this last point being why the methods used should perhaps be better known.
-
Bob Lacatena at 23:35 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray,
I... have yet to be convinced that climate change is caused only by humans.
What evidence have you seen that it is?
What evidence have you seen that it is not?To what does the application of the scientific method point?
[There is a wealth of evidence available, in a variety of forms. At this point in time, there is no reason for there to be any doubt in this matter.]
-
Ray at 23:30 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Thanks very much for your information Kevin which certainly fills in gaps in my knowledge and it would seem, may provide information of which shoyemore was also unaware
Moderator Response:[DB] "may provide information of which shoyemore was also unaware"
Please cease with the strawman argumentation. This venue is not about scoring rhetorical points. Shoyemore's point
a claim was made that climate change was caused solely by humans
is not the same as
ghg are responsible for between 100% and 200% of surface warming
Shoyemore is certainly aware of the difference, as are the vast majority of the participants in this venue.
-
Kevin8233 at 23:13 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
shoyemore,
Over the past 60 years (1951–2010), the study finds that global average surface temperatures have warmed 0.6°C, while in climate models, greenhouse gases caused between 0.6 and 1.2°C surface warming. This was offset by a cooling from other human influences (mainly from aerosols) of 0 to 0.5°C. These results are consistent with all prior studies of the causes of global warming (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, light green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WS12, dark green), and Jones et al. 2013 (J12, pink).
This is a quote from the "New study - Same result" posting here on SkS. In this posting, "Humans" by causing the increase in ghg are responsible for between 100% and 200% of surface warming.
I believe this satisfies your demand of Ray.
-
nealjking at 23:13 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Tom Dayton:
Thanks for pointing out the article on CO2 saturation: I have wondered where that article was hiding.
Actually, my understanding of how the various aspects of line broadening affect the absorption coefficient is a current weak point in how I think about the GHE, so it would require some more study to pin it down better than what Riccardo has already written.
Maybe later.
-
shoyemore at 22:55 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
RAy,
I think you need to show us where a claim was made that climate change was caused solely by humans. There is none on this site AFAIK and none in the scientific literature I ever heard of.
You clearly have a lot of reading to do.
-
Tom Dayton at 22:53 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Neal, maybe your explanation of broadening could be added as a section in the Advanced tab of "Is the CO2 Effect Saturated?"
-
nealjking at 22:30 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
barry:
The pressure broadening affects the absorption coefficient:
- In a thin gas, the absorption coefficient is derived by doing the quantum mechanical calculation for the absorption probability of a photon by a single atom; and then multiplying it by the number density of that type of atom.
- The result is a function of frequency, with lots of regions of nothing and occasional blips where the frequency matches a quantum transition. The height of a peak is related to the likelihood of absorbing a photon in that region; the width is inversely related to the rapidity with which this transition will occur. Thus, the longer the lifetime of the state (before transition), the narrower the width.
- The resulting absorption coefficient is what is integrated along the optical path of the radiation beam to calculate the optical depth. The significance of the optical depth is: If a photon travels along the beam for an optical depth of magnitude 1, that means it has a probability of (1 - 1/e ) of surviving that trip without having been absorbed. So a photon emitted towards space at an optical depth less than 1(as measured from outer space inward) has a decent chance of actually escaping the atmosphere without being absorbed; whereas a lower-altitude photon headed up will most likely be stopped along the way; it's energy will eventually be emitted as a new photon.
- In a thicker gas, the picture is modified a little: The atoms of interest will be suffering collisions with the other atoms (of the same type or not, I don't believe it matters). The result is that the lifetime of the pre-transition state is shortened, because the atomic state can be changed without absorbing the photon. I believe this has the following effects on the absorption peak:
a) broadens it, so the frequencies of interest are a wider subband; b) lowers the peak; c) reduces to some extent the total probability of absorption (but I don't know if this is at all significant; and there might be a countervailing factor).- So the effect of the pressure broadening is to flatten and spread out the absorption peaks in the absorption coefficient curves. Otherwise, these curves are used just as before to calculate the altitudes of the OD=1 points, as a function of frequency.
[Now that we discuss this in detail, I wonder if there could be a reduction in the frequency integral of the absorption curve due to pressure broadening. It should be noted that there are other contributors to spectral-line broadening, like Doppler shifting due to the random kinetic motion of the molecules. Chris Colose originally mentioned the pressure broadening to me, and he claimed it would slightly increase the overall probability of absorption. It would take a little reading to sort this question out.]
-
Tom Dayton at 22:22 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Feyerabend was correct in many points, about the messiness of how science really is and should be done. You need not buy into his fully anarchistic view, to appreciate the truth of many of his points.
-
Ray at 22:15 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Shoyemore. I think debate is very stimulating ndf very useful but think you have misunderstood what I stated so perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough. You say "It is also a strange attitude from a scientist to say that you "don't believe in climate change" and invite others to supply you with "evidence". Surely as a scientist you should check the evidence BEFORE you make decisions about your beliefs, I did not I didn't believe in climate change but on rereading I can see why you thought I did as I phrased it poorly by saying " And fiinally there are very few scientists including me, that don't believe in climate change." To make it perfectly clear I do believe in climate change but have yet to be convinced that climate change is caused only by humans. But I have to apologise for some very poor phrasing which has created a false impression of my stancer om this topic
-
shoyemore at 21:36 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray,
You are very adept at rounding up the usual suspects.
Firstly, the group of climate scientists you name are one of the few groups you could possibly name in the category, whereas I could name hundreds of groups of four or five scientists who would not see eye to eye. One you get past the Heartland Institute annual jamboree of "climate science", you are at a loss. How about Prof Scott Denning, Prof Richard Alley, Dr Ben Santer and Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan? Kindly enumerate where their "predictions" did not meet your standards.
Secondly, what is your judgment on Dr Roy Spencer's many predictions of imminent cooling, and arctic ice recovery? Does this not suggest his "alternative theory" (if he has one) is falsified. You might care to read some of the slip-ups of climate misinformers by clicking the link on the top left of the page.
I have been trying to emphasise the collegiality of science and its powers of self-correction. I would put by faith in the science as a whole, and not in your "Gang of Five".
You seem uninterested in checking out the assumptions Dr Hansen made in his 1988 paper, despite being supplied with the means to do so. A strange reaction for a scientist.
It is also a strange attitude from a scientist to say that you "don't believe in climate change" and invite others to supply you with "evidence". Surely as a scientist you should check the evidence BEFORE you make decisions about your beliefs, expecially when it contradicts your prior assumptions. I expected you to be as familiar with the evidence as anyone else on the site.
There is evidence out there (a lot of it on this site, if you could rise to checking it out) but few of us are in the business of making up the deficiencies of the intellectually slothful or the closed-minded.
-
shoyemore at 21:14 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
BillEverett @23
Denial fails at 1) because they rarely come forward with alternative hypotheses. Platt's procedure seems to me to be fair enough, but many of these procedures miss out on the "hidden hand" of science - there is a big dependence on replication by more than one experimental group, groups which are often fierce rivals, as much as commercial organisations are rivals.
Science does keep itself honest and self-correcting, though sometimes notorious cases slip through.
My opinion is that long-standing scientific theories are rarely simple enough to stand or fall on a single experiment. A great example is the "neutrinos-faster-than-light" controversy of last year. First of all, no one got over-excited, awaiting replication of the results. Secondly, no one suggested abandoning Einstein's major axiom overnight. Short-cuts through higher-dimensions and other contrivances were suggested to "save the theory". In the end, it turned out to be error in the apparatus.
A Richrd Feynman anecdote tells the same story. Feynman and Gell-Mann put forward a new theory of beta decay. They published and 6 months later, the first experimental test results came in - the theory failed.
Gell-Mann said to Feynmann: "What do we do now?"
Feynman shrugged. "We wait" was all he said.
Another few months, and more results came in - the experimenter admitted a technical hitch, and the new results were confirmatory. it all tends to show that overthrowing a scientific theory is not a simple matter of totting up experimental predictions.
-
Ray at 21:01 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Thanks for the comments although it appears that you are all focussing on some remarks I made about climate science rather than on the scientific method. Many of the comments I made on the scientific method including the "blinkered" comment were first enunciated by Kuhn whose work, incidentally, formed the basis of the subsequent work by Lakatos referred to by others But to revert to the areas that appear to have ignited passions. (-snip-). And fiinally there are very few scientists including me, that don't believe in climate change. That said however, so far as I am aware there has been no direct observational or experimental studies that conclusively that global warming is primarily due to human production of CO2. If there are such studies I would be very grateful for links to them as it is apparent such studies will be very relevant to this discussion of the scientific method
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. -
shoyemore at 20:58 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
chriskoz @22
Ray is obviously sloganeering as the addition of the C to AGW is always done with pejorative intent. However there is no CAGW theory in the scientific literature so the faux-acronym is out of place in this discussion.
-
barry1487 at 20:58 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Thanks nealjking, that's speaks directly to my question. If you wouldn't mind pointing it out, where above are the equations that account for pressure broadening? I looked up the Beer-Lambert law and wondered if it is included in some form upthread (assuming I'm on the right track - my curiosity far overreaches my ken).
-
BillEverett at 19:07 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
An alternative to the four steps of scientific method listed in the post is the notion of "strong inference" discussed by John R. Platt:
Strong inference consists of applying the following steps to every problem in science, formally and explicitly and regularly:
1) Devising alternative hypotheses;
2) Devising a crucial experiment (or several of them), with alternative possible outcomes, each of which will, as nearly as possible, exclude one or more of the hypotheses;
3) Carrying out the experiment so as to get a clean result;
1') Recycling the procedure, making subhypotheses or sequential hypotheses to refine the possibilities that remain; and so on.
Incidentally, the paper following Platt's paper in Science in 1964 might also have historical interest to some: "Glacier Geophysics" by Barclay Kamb: "Dynamic response of glaciers to changing climate may shed light on processes in the earth's interior."
-
chriskoz at 18:47 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
shoyemor@20,
Although the first hit on google translated said acronym as:
Citizens Against Government Waste
but I also found:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
and that's almost certainly (I guess at least 3sigma) what Ray meant.
-
Matt Bennett at 18:40 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Sorry Ray, false balance there my friend. Just because you can name three or four contrarian climate scientists (whose opinions are notably fringe in their field) who have at least managed to be published, doesn't mean the other three or four you pluck out of the consensus field should share equal billing with this mob and that'is all there is to it..... Oh no! Have a look at Hansen et al and at their publishing record and their citation indices etc then get back to me. It's like selecting a representative of EACH of the many and varied theories as to who wrote Shakespeare's plays and then chucking a single historian amidst this crowd who believes the evidence suggests that, hey, actually Shakespeare himself wrote them. This is not a fair representation of the 'expert historical opinion' out there and is a very contemporary phenomenon - as I said, false balance. It's the very crime I've been accusing the Murdoch press of above, esp The Oz. -
shoyemore at 18:28 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray,
Dr Hansen's scenarios are discussed here.
Science is not a game with two teams and "victory" going to the team that "scores" more accurate predictions. It is seldom that simple, and then only with very sketchy theories like caloric, the lumeniferous aether or the Steady State Universe. The last two were demolished by a single set of observations - but a complex set of observations and hypothesis like the Standard Model of Particle Physics could not be overthrown by a single experiment - though it might be modified.
Dr Hansen's paper has to evaluated on the basis of the assumptions made, or the "auxiliary hypotheses" described by Tom Curtis in #7. You will find it emerges as far stronger than you give it credit.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
The outcome is no reason to abandon AGW as a theory.
The failure's of Newton's theory to predict the orbit of Jupiter did not lead to its abandonment - it led to the discovery of Neptune. Newton's theories had made two many successful predictions to be given up lightly. Scientists are instinctively conservative and will not abandon a complex and sussessful scientific theory overnight - indeed Max Planck said they wait until followers of the old theory die out!
PS AGW is a handy shorthand. What is CAGW? C standing for what, exactly?
-
Ray at 17:32 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
I'm sorry scaddenp but having re-read the topic posted I can't quite follow the points you are making. The article under dicusssion is on the scientific method and the comments I make on the scientific method are, as far as I can see, entirely relevant. I presume therefore you are referring to my comment "However in the field of climate science this discussion is severely hampered by the entrenched positions on both sides of the debate." Is this inaccurate? There are discussions on climate science between Dr Pielke Snr, Dr Pielke Jnr, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr John Christie and Dr Judith Curry who have some reservations about CAGW and Dr Gavin Schmidt, Dr Phil Jones, Dr Michael Mann, Dr Kevin Trenberth and Dr Eric Steig who have few reservations about of CAGW. All of these are clmate scientists and it his hard to see how Drs. Christy, Spencer, Curry et al fall into your category "However, the "discussion" is between non-climate scientists, (ideologically-driven for most part), trying to fool the public with misinformation;. Similarly I wonder if Drs. Schmidt, Jones, Mann et all would be flattered by your comment "real scientists who on the whole are inept in public communication." All of these scientists publish and comment on the publications of others which seems to cover your point that " If there was real debate, then it would be reflected in the exchange in scientific papers." It is my opinion that there are entrenched positions but I accept that you don't consider this to be the case. I respect yoiur opinion. (-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. -
Kevin C at 17:16 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
An article on the scientific method without a mention of Popper is a startling development. However it maybe no bad thing.
Ray brings up Thomas Kuhn, but is already trumped by Tom's Imre Lakatos further up the thread. For anyone wanting to understand how normal science really works I'd definately recommend reading at least as far a Lakatos - in particular the distinction between progressive and degenerate scientific programs is particularly revealing with respect to climate science.
A very brief stufy of the sceptic literature reveals that there is no skeptic scientific program, but merely a collection of inconsistent claims supposedly refuting the consensus program. At the same time there are constant challenges from within the progressive program re-evaluating parts of that program - a hallmark of a progressive program. While the greenhouse effect is clearly a part of that hard core, GCMs clearly aren't, which is where Climate4All misunderstands the shape of the program.
Having said that, I think to fully understand the situation in climate science we need to go beyond Lakatos and understand not just the philosophy but the sociology of science.
-
nealjking at 17:15 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
barry:
The basic equations are radiative-transfer equations, that describe how the intensity of a radiation beam changes along its path. These are equations relating integrals of the absorption coefficient, whicih depend on frequency and also on the local pressure because of the pressure broadening. So in principle, the general picture is unchanged, but the real calculations have to be done for one frequency at aa time (line by line). Also, the description in terms of the equation of local radiative spectral density with local gas dynamics is approximate, because there is a "delay".
-
Matt Bennett at 16:51 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Well put scaddenp. And further to that Ray, if you'd actually done your homework and understood what's known with relative certainty and what remains to be pinned down with better precision, there's no way you'd be so easily mislead into thinking James Hansen had experienced some epiphany whereby he'd changed his thinking in some major way. Keep reading. As scaddenp said, the illusion of some great argument among the true experts is exactly that, a delusion born of ignorance. It is even more telling that you think that this imaginary 'blinkered' scientific thinking is somehow peculiar to climate science, a convenience of politics perhaps? MModerator Response: [DB] Fixed name spelling. -
scaddenp at 16:41 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray, your comments would make sense if there was some scientific debate actually in progress. However, the "discussion" is between non-climate scientists, (ideologically-driven for most part), trying to fool the public with misinformation; and real scientists who on the whole are inept in public communication. If there was real debate, then it would be reflected in the exchange in scientific papers. There isnt. The "entrenched" position is a preference for reality over distortion.
By all means discussion alternative hypotheses backed by data and published papers but good luck finding them.
Hansen's comments by the way represent no change in climate theory at all - merely a wondering about the actual value of a poorly measured forcing. Not a single equation in climate science is changed.
-
barry1487 at 15:14 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Would it be worth including the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning in scientific theories? The notion of 'proof' is often misapplied.
Moderator Response:In the new textbook, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, deductive and inductive reasoning are discussed, pp 38-40.
-
Bert from Eltham at 15:05 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
I work on a different level.
I just do not know.
I find out what is known.
I then pull apart all that I have found out.
If I have new information or insights I then publish to see what others think.
The others will soon let me know how far wrong I am.
When morons doubt the findings of this method because of their ignorance I wonder why I bother.
I should just make definitive statements about a subject I have no idea about and defend this position with even more definitive statements without foundation.
Bert
-
barry1487 at 15:03 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
KR,
I'm sure that 'pressure broadening' is taken into account in detailed studies, but my question was prompted by the simplified equations above (not so simple to me, though) in relation to what I've read about the importance of the effects of pressure on absorption, a breakthrough in understanding, as far as I can make out from having read the realclimate articles (among others) on saturation;
The breakthroughs that finally set the field back on the right track came from research during the 1940s... the new studies showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements... Among other things, the new studies showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements. Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened and overlap to a considerable extent. Even at sea level pressure, the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes, but the gaps between the spikes are fairly narrow and the "valleys" between the spikes are not terribly deep. None of this was known a century ago... Measurements done for the US Air Force drew scientists’ attention to the details of the absorption, and especially at high altitudes. At low pressure the spikes become much more sharply defined, like a picket fence.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that pressure effects on absorption are a significant factor, and I just wanted to know if this effect is included in the equations above, and if not, does it make much difference to the consequent surface temperature reasult. It's not a crucial question for the discussion, just a point of interest for me.
-
Matt Bennett at 14:00 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Speaking of the scientific method, could somebody please point out how it works again to The Australian's invaluable (sarc) 'Environmental Editor', Graham Lloyd? My jaw just drops every time I come across his articles - and he's the one charged with bringing a 'balanced' editorial view to the paper's supposedly more sophisticated readership.The scientific method does not involve trawling the literature for the odd paper which can be spun, using cherry-picked quotes and out-of-context analysis, to make it appear as if the science is contentious or that those silly old scientists can't make up their minds.... This week, yet again, he misrepresents the surface air temps as representative of global warming, repeats the likely misquoting (via indirect quotes) of the IPCC Chairman (and James Hansen to boot!) and alleges that modeling completely mismatches reality.I know this is slightly OT but I am truly appalled at the kindergarten coverage provided by an Env Ed. on such an important issue. Does he actually care about the truth? -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:23 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
"Theories are tested not by single crucial experiments but by continued failure."
Thank you Tom for this most valuable reminder.
-
IsaFB at 12:59 PM on 1 April 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
It’s good to hear some good news. It seems that every-where I look, I see the situation becoming more and more dire. It’s good to know that people in power ARE paying attention and are implementing policy changes.
But I wonder if this is enough
These issues are immediate and their consequences frightening. The timescale for drastic action is now. At the current rate of progress, I fear that we will fail.
I hold on to hope.
-
Rob Painting at 12:21 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate4all - yours is a common misunderstanding about ENSO. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on how it will evolve in the future. Whether it will intensify or weaken, or whether we may see a shift to either more El Nino's or more La Nina's. The climate models are equivocal in this respect.
But warming of the planet means the atmosphere warms and can therefore hold and redistribute more water vapour - intensifying the global water (hydrological) cycle. This occurs because the increased water holding/redistribution capacity increases at a rate faster than the warming (the Clausius-Clapeyron relation). So, when moisture is converged in a warmer atmosphere there is simply more of it, relative to areas where moisture diverges. The end result is more intense downpours (convergence), and more intense droughts (divergence).
La Nina & El Nino represent two extremes of the global weather, which is why they exert such a dominant influence on year-to-year sea level fluctuations - see the recent SkS post: Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on Road to Higher Sea Level. La Nina & El Nino are part of Earth's circulatory system. Even if warming does not cause this circulatory system to change in any significant manner, the warming will continue to intensify the global water cycle because of the enhanced capacity to transport moisture.
SkS will have some posts on this, showing some of the modelling results, in the near-future - it's on my to-do list. But the point here is that there is no discrepancy between what NOAA and the Real Climate post say - it simply boils down to a misunderstanding on your part. A common misunderstanding to be sure.
-
KR at 12:00 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
barry - Changing air pressures do not (within human-tolerable limits, at least) directly change gaseous absorption. What directly affects absorption is, rather, the number of IR absorbing/emitting greenhouse gas molecules in each volume of air, a product of both concentration (which may be altitude dependent, as in the case of H2O) and pressure.
And yes, amounts due to pressure and concentration for the various GHG's are accounted for in the line-by-line multiple layer radiative transfer calculations. See Myhre et al 1998 for the application of such calculations to CO2 sensitivity.
-
barry1487 at 11:36 AM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Are the effects of different air pressures changing absorptive properties included in the equations above describing the greenhouse effect? My physics is beyond weak: I guess I'm asking if this is accounted for, and if not, what difference it might make for calculating a change in temperature from a significant increase of CO2 (ignoring feedbacks)?
-
Climate4All at 10:57 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
@chrsikoz #9
You write,"Please do your little homework and make sure you understand the basics before you blame the climate scientists..."
You obviously wrote that before my second comment, otherwise I doubt you would had not made such an ill conceived notion as to my understanding.
I don't make this stuff up.
How can tis broader audience be educated to which rockytom emphasizes, when there are contradictory responses among the (-snip-)?
NOAA scientists suggest that,"higher global temperatures might be increasing evaporation from land and adding moisture to the air, thus intensifying the storms and floods associated with El Niño," while other scientists that RC post that ENSO may enter an average state. This is two completely different hypothesis from well-respected climatologists.
(-snip-), that Climate Change is not the same as weather, you may want to ask the climatologists that are blaming recent weather patterns on AGW. Skeptics aren't blaming ENSO on Climate Change, the Climatoligists are. The Skeptics aren't blaming record snowfall on AGW. Climatologists are. So says the news.
Please don't detract from the discussion on the Scientific Method please. Lets stick to the discussion of how to improve communication on the practice. (-snip-).
If I bring up any doubt, its only because if we can improve the method, we must first point out the flaws. Not the theory. The results of a correct prediction formulated on models will be all the facts I need.
Moderator Response: [DB] If you cannot take this model-centric discussion to one of the pages devoted to models here, then you will force the moderation staff to intervene more stringently. Inflammatory tone snipped. -
chriskoz at 10:30 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate4All@3, you said:
In order to strengthen the predictions of their hypothesis, the anomalies [ jet stream currents, ENSO, UHI, and Illuminosity] previously omitted from GCMs, should be concluded(sic).
Assuming sic is just typos (you mean "included", otherwise your sentence does not make sense), your very basic misunderstanding of climate science concepts is that you confuse climate with weather. You look at any single weather event and don't try to understand the big picture, as if you looked at a single tree and did not try to understand the tree is part of the forest.
A better analogy would be the description of termodynamic properties of gas in a cylinder. You don't look at what each particle is doing (it's velocity, exact paths, how often it comes in contact with other particles, etc) when you want to describe the overall properties of gas: temperature, pressure, saturation. You can only say, that say the average velocity of particles increase with temperature.
The exactly same distinction aplies between climate science and weather events. Climate scienists never say that that "these weather anomalies is a result of a [climate change] theory". They actually say that "probability of weather anomalies changes as the result of climate change".
Please do your little homework and make sure you understand the basics before you blame the climate scientists and their models for misrepresenting the reality. They actually understand the reality far better than you because they can see the world through both larger/longer (average conditions) and shorter (weather events) perspectives. For example, climate models already know the influence of ENSO and can predict the effects. But you cannot, because all you do with your current attitude is look for one tree and deny the existence of a forrest.
-
Climate4All at 10:18 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
@John Russell #6
Once again, please don't put words in my mouth that I do not utter. As the post suggest, Scientific research includes GCMs, but there is no mention of reformulation of them. But that is the Scientific Method. If not a large part as rockytom said,"mainly."
From IPCC DCC, this disclaimer is stated:
"Moreover, many physical processes, such as those related to clouds, also occur at smaller scales and cannot be properly modelled. Instead, their known properties must be averaged over the larger scale in a technique known as parameterization. This is one source of uncertainty in GCM-based simulations of future climate."
RC posted on the subject of GCMs and the problematic behavior of ENSO:
"...the question about how ENSO will respond to a global warming is still not settled. However, it seems that one common trait among some climate models is the indication that a global warming may result in a more a general El Niño-type average state."
Peterson et.al. 2003 also stated, a leading climatologist for the IPCC also wrote:
“Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.” This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas)."
So pardon me for engaging in a thought analysis that is part of the scientific method.
There is no agenda here other than drawing out some conclusions regarding the scientific method. As the previous quotes I highlighted above, which by the way is sources derived from either, The IPCC or the authors that participated in the Assesment Report. They as much claim, as indicated, to the enherit difficulty predicting the exact anomalies I posted in a previous message.
Why is it considered poor taste if i remotely cast doubt on climatology, when the authors of climatology express the same doubt, but you and others feel it necessary i do so for some agenda. Why dont you ask the authors of climate science why they are not complete sure of their predictions, rather than attack me?
I only suggest this to open communication on the scientific method and just made reference to the posters on admission of GCMs as the main predictive factor in the method in how it applies.
Prev 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 Next
