|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 10:41:09 GMT
Post by woodstove on Mar 26, 2010 10:41:09 GMT
I had a high school physics teacher that understood that who rather than trying to force his students through thick texts took the demonstration route for teaching. It was extremely effective and inspiring. It was reflective in our school topping the statewide physics test scores. This wasn't in California, by any chance? Sounds like my high-school physics teacher, Art Farmer.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 11:07:34 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 26, 2010 11:07:34 GMT
Yes, and as one poster there suggested...it impacts ALL sciences. There's a ton of junk science, probably quite a lot of which formed under similar circumstances. On the bright side, this means the unintended benefit from climate "science"...is that of cleaning house. If we'd only stuck with religious dogma we wouldn't be in this mess! Would anyone like to explain what VS means in words of two syllables, because on the face of it some people seem to be accepting it without reflection. On the face of it, if I read that something refuted AGW based purely on a statistical relationship between 20th Century temperatures and CO2, then I would be sceptical. The statistical relationship between 20th century temperatures and CO2 is going to be complicated because the relationship is confused by changes in other forcings and by decadal variability. Also because the relationship is filtered through a lot of physical processes - ie. adding CO2 is like turning up the thermostat on the central heating. The rate of warming that follows depends on the size and structure of the house, the weather outside, whether any doors or windows are opened, the original heat distribution in the house (eg. whether concrete walls and floors were initially cold or warm), and so forth. The poster has pointed out that they don't have the physics background to understand the physical scenario.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 16:44:38 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 26, 2010 16:44:38 GMT
If we'd only stuck with religious dogma we wouldn't be in this mess! Would anyone like to explain what VS means in words of two syllables, because on the face of it some people seem to be accepting it without reflection. I think VS does a pretty good job of it in the thread answering the multitude of questions surrounding it. I have a background in statistics and thus understand most of it but I certainly cannot explain it better than VS does in the referenced thread. Professionally such stuff is intuitive to me . . . .Akasofu and Easterbrook both exposed it without the mathematical proof. What VS is contributing is statistical science to how such stuff is properly tested mathematically drawing from econometrics and a couple of Nobel Prize winning studies. So in simple syllables your claim there is observational evidence supporting AGW simply is not true. Many are challenging VS on this but they are not submitting proofs and VS showed that Kaufmann understood this, conducted the test (effectively acknowledging it) but rejected the test without explanation instead of the hypothesis which is indeed science stood on its head. On the face of it, if I read that something refuted AGW based purely on a statistical relationship between 20th Century temperatures and CO2, then I would be sceptical. The statistical relationship between 20th century temperatures and CO2 is going to be complicated because the relationship is confused by changes in other forcings and by decadal variability. Also because the relationship is filtered through a lot of physical processes - ie. adding CO2 is like turning up the thermostat on the central heating. The rate of warming that follows depends on the size and structure of the house, the weather outside, whether any doors or windows are opened, the original heat distribution in the house (eg. whether concrete walls and floors were initially cold or warm), and so forth. The poster has pointed out that they don't have the physics background to understand the physical scenario. Indeed Steve! But from a pure statistics test point of view there is no correlation between observational evidence and the theory of AGW (which you admit are incomplete in modeling the complexities of the atmosphere also). VS does not deny the IR absorption of CO2 he is just pointing out that there is no correlation between that and the warming of the planet and points out such a correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for proving causation. So when dealing with incomplete "phenomenological models" its just handwaving to suggest that the processes are too complex as an excuse for being unable to demonstrate a relationship in the real world. The problem is in fact with the models not being complex enough to establish a relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures. This was Akasofu's conclusion. You need to identify something to subtract from the record with plausible explanation to reveal the remainder which correlates to CO2. So the fact is it is not only VS that does not have sufficient physical science knowledge. Its apparent its the entire body of climatological science. So the least aggressive conclusion is that the models have no predictive powers that can be statistically supported. That's the bottom line. You bought into a very expensive divining rod Steve!
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 17:08:59 GMT
Post by magellan on Mar 26, 2010 17:08:59 GMT
As no list of "basic physics" in climate models that are not parametrized after months of begging for the information has not materialized, it can be assumed such a list does not exist. Linking to RC fibs is not evidence.
If only one dependent element in a model fails, the model is failed. Scrap hypothesis, start over. It is no more complicated than that.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 17:13:56 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 26, 2010 17:13:56 GMT
VS said
Lack of any apparent grasp of basic physics prevents him realising that the conclusion he has come to proves the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics".
His test will not produce the results he has obtained on many of the timescales for which we have knowledge about (such as the ice age cycles) and fails to take account of the real (albeit limited) predictive capability of models (eg. following volcano eruptions or strong El Niños) that argue against what his statistical tests have thrown up. The test also looks like it would quite easily disprove the notion that you'd sell more ice-cream in warm weather.
The rest of it seems to be CO2 and temperature cannot be related because their levels are governed by different, and incompatible, statistical properties. Does he give any indication of knowing what the link should be though? Er, no.
I assume from VS's links that economists are getting involved in this "debate". Economists are perhaps used to scenarios where there are no underlying fixed laws about what people do. So it is not unjustifiable to assume that there is no link between a trend (eg. the price of houses) and an observed phenomenon (housing shortage, wealth, availability of credit etc. etc.) because there are many underlying psychological factors that are difficult to measure. They are using their methods elsewhere without appreciating that such assumptions may not hold for genuine fixed reasons.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 17:29:05 GMT
Post by hunter on Mar 26, 2010 17:29:05 GMT
So for the AGW community it is OK to erase the MWP and Roman AND the LIA, or only parts of them?
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 17:59:24 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 26, 2010 17:59:24 GMT
So for the AGW community it is OK to erase the MWP and Roman AND the LIA, or only parts of them? I don't see they add much to the discussion. The proposition is being tested by reference to links between physical changes (Milankovitch cycles) and temperature. Other temperature changes in the Holocene can also be related to Milankovitch cycles. These things (and common sense!) are telling us that there is little justification for *assuming* that temperature just goes up and down of its own accord.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 18:40:21 GMT
Post by hunter on Mar 26, 2010 18:40:21 GMT
So for the AGW community it is OK to erase the MWP and Roman AND the LIA, or only parts of them? I don't see they add much to the discussion. The proposition is being tested by reference to links between physical changes (Milankovitch cycles) and temperature. Other temperature changes in the Holocene can also be related to Milankovitch cycles. These things (and common sense!) are telling us that there is little justification for *assuming* that temperature just goes up and down of its own accord. The question is not if they go up and down on 'their own accord'. the questin is if similar temps in the past generated feedbacks that led to catastrophic changes in the climate. If the historic temps of similar and higher levels led to no catastrophic changes, then AGW promoters would not have spent so much effort erasing them. The legs of the AGW stool include the idea that now is unique and leads (or has led) to dangerous climate changes.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 18:47:38 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 26, 2010 18:47:38 GMT
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 19:25:36 GMT
Post by trbixler on Mar 26, 2010 19:25:36 GMT
VS said Lack of any apparent grasp of basic physics prevents him realising that the conclusion he has come to proves the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics". His test will not produce the results he has obtained on many of the timescales for which we have knowledge about (such as the ice age cycles) and fails to take account of the real (albeit limited) predictive capability of models (eg. following volcano eruptions or strong El Niños) that argue against what his statistical tests have thrown up. The test also looks like it would quite easily disprove the notion that you'd sell more ice-cream in warm weather. The rest of it seems to be CO2 and temperature cannot be related because their levels are governed by different, and incompatible, statistical properties. Does he give any indication of knowing what the link should be though? Er, no. I assume from VS's links that economists are getting involved in this "debate". Economists are perhaps used to scenarios where there are no underlying fixed laws about what people do. So it is not unjustifiable to assume that there is no link between a trend (eg. the price of houses) and an observed phenomenon (housing shortage, wealth, availability of credit etc. etc.) because there are many underlying psychological factors that are difficult to measure. They are using their methods elsewhere without appreciating that such assumptions may not hold for genuine fixed reasons. recitations please
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 22:37:30 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 26, 2010 22:37:30 GMT
So for the AGW community it is OK to erase the MWP and Roman AND the LIA, or only parts of them? I don't see they add much to the discussion. The proposition is being tested by reference to links between physical changes (Milankovitch cycles) and temperature. Other temperature changes in the Holocene can also be related to Milankovitch cycles. These things (and common sense!) are telling us that there is little justification for *assuming* that temperature just goes up and down of its own accord. That of course is just pure unmitigated claptrap! Milanovich cycles ONLY correlate to temperature changes on the 1/2 million year proxy record (several 100,000 year cycles). They do not provide explanations for the wiggles we see on smaller timescales thus if CO2 is the only forcing according to your logic temperatures do go up and down on their own accord Steve. But well beyond all that you are not providing any support whatsoever for the notion that CO2 correlates to temperature, yet that notion is foundational to the AGW alarmism. Fact is VS is shredding the issue and nobody has a scientific reply so far. The implication of that is the models have no basis for assigning any degree of predictive power.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 23:31:16 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 26, 2010 23:31:16 GMT
VS said Lack of any apparent grasp of basic physics prevents him realising that the conclusion he has come to proves the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics". Data please! His test will not produce the results he has obtained on many of the timescales for which we have knowledge about (such as the ice age cycles) and fails to take account of the real (albeit limited) predictive capability of models (eg. following volcano eruptions or strong El Niños) that argue against what his statistical tests have thrown up. The test also looks like it would quite easily disprove the notion that you'd sell more ice-cream in warm weather. Data please! The rest of it seems to be CO2 and temperature cannot be related because their levels are governed by different, and incompatible, statistical properties. Does he give any indication of knowing what the link should be though? Er, no. He didn't say "can't". He said "unlikely". What he is disputing are the error bars offered for the models. He states they cannot scientifically claim the degrees of certainty they claim and he is assurdedly correct in that. One simply cannot claim with any degree of certainty that any of the climate models are correct. I assume from VS's links that economists are getting involved in this "debate". Economists are perhaps used to scenarios where there are no underlying fixed laws about what people do. So it is not unjustifiable to assume that there is no link between a trend (eg. the price of houses) and an observed phenomenon (housing shortage, wealth, availability of credit etc. etc.) because there are many underlying psychological factors that are difficult to measure. They are using their methods elsewhere without appreciating that such assumptions may not hold for genuine fixed reasons. Difficulty to measure isn't a qualifier for being a law. Economics has the law of supply and demand. Measuring the variables is difficult. Likewise the theory of AGW does not stand on a fundamental law. You have the IR properties of CO2 but you cannot say with certainty that the effect isn't already saturated, what CO2's share of the effect is, or whether processes exist that amplify or mute the effect. Yet the theory of catastrophic warming depends upon these unknowns. And to date the values of those unknowns was developed on the basis of an assumed correlation of CO2 to temperature. That claim of correlation that lies at the base of the issue of effects appears to be without any scientific support. Thus the fundamental law can exist and AGW may not fly. . . .just like how the Wright Bros actual controls would be inadequate to fly a modern jet despite how profound and elemental their discovery was.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 23:36:42 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 26, 2010 23:36:42 GMT
I had a high school physics teacher that understood that who rather than trying to force his students through thick texts took the demonstration route for teaching. It was extremely effective and inspiring. It was reflective in our school topping the statewide physics test scores. This wasn't in California, by any chance? Sounds like my high-school physics teacher, Art Farmer. It was California but not Art Farmer though I may have had an Art Farmer in my class the name really sounds familiar to that time in my life but that probably is just a coincidence.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 0:17:23 GMT
Post by Ratty on Mar 27, 2010 0:17:23 GMT
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 0:56:04 GMT
Post by woodstove on Mar 27, 2010 0:56:04 GMT
I know of the jazz musician, thanks for the reminder, Ratty. The Art Farmer who taught me AP Physics placed 40 or 50 of his students in the top 200 in the state of California (pop. 25,000,000 at the time) routinely, including my year, including me -- and that lets you know what a fine teacher he was. ;D
|
|