Royal Society releases new scientific sumary of GW
-
Although Fat_Boy is incessant in this subject, he does not need to explain anything to anybody (his understandings of the subject) when communicating with any prescribed UK organisation and/or establishment. All he needs to do is place a request for specific information under the terms of the UK's Freedom of Information Act (and related statutes). They (the organisation/establishment/institution) are thus duty bound to respond either with the information requested or to explain the reason for denial, all of this within a defined time-frame. It is my understanding that if Fat_Boy hasn't quoted the Act in his request for information, they can ignore him.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
They (the organisation/establishment/institution) are thus duty bound to respond either with the information requested or to explain the reason for denial, all of this within a defined time-frame. It is my understanding that if Fat_Boy hasn't quoted the Act in his request for information, they can ignore him.
So not only is he asking the wrong question, he's asking the wrong people?
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
This is propper scicntific method, using a control experiment to take out unknown variables.
Well, if this is the way you presented it to the Royal Society, it's no wonder they would ignore you. If you wanted to try again you should: present your hypothesis in a clear and succinct fashion. Describe the experiment you would do to try and disprove that hypothesis. List all potential confounders and describe how they could either be controlled for or, if they cannot be controlled, describe how their presence could impact the conclusions drawn from the experiment. Finally, you should explain how this hypothesis is not adequately addressed by the existing literature. If you can present all that in an organized and thoughtful way, it's not unreasonable to expect an explanation as to whether or not the conclusions drawn from your experiment are already demonstrated or refuted based on existing literature and if there actually is a genuine equipoise that would suggest an experiment should be done*. You may not agree with them in which case if you were a researcher you could conduct the experiment yourself and publish the results. Reading your post, I don't know what your precise investigative question is and I don't really understand what experiment you want to run. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't be sloppy. *This is actually probably more important in my field where the ethics of human trials suggest you shouldn't subject people to experiments if a conclusion is already well supported, but even in other fields statistically it's possible to get a positive trial in a sea of negative evidence just by random chance if you do enough experiments. This is one of the reasons clinical trials are now required to be registered.
- F
I thought it would be fairly clear. If not let me explain it again: Known, calculated, fundamental physics shows that doubling CO2 will lead to arond a 1C rise in temperature. However when using this figure the computer models cant model the rise in temperature from 1970-2000 so they multiply it. This gives rise to the 2 to 4.5 C temperature rise stated in the link. Now, it is well known that there are a lot of uncertainties and inknowns regarding the climate so how do we know there isnt another factor affecting temperature and that it is that that is responsible for the extra 1 to 3.5 degree rise? In order to determine this the models could be run on the 1910-1940 or the 1860-1880 period which, to quote Dr Jones of CRUT are largely the same as the 1970-2000 period in rate and magnitude, but becuse these periods do not have associated rises in CO2 as great as that for the 1970-2000 period, the effect on any unknowns can be isolated. Thus when run on these earlier periods an estimate of the effect of any unknowns can be arrived at. With this estimation applied to the 1970-2000 period any left over unaccounted warming can be more confidently attributed to CO2. This as you know is the scientific principle of a 'control experiment', whose intention is to take out unknowns and isolate only the factor being tested for. Now, to my knowledge this hasnt been done. I would like to verify that, and if so, know why?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
They (the organisation/establishment/institution) are thus duty bound to respond either with the information requested or to explain the reason for denial, all of this within a defined time-frame. It is my understanding that if Fat_Boy hasn't quoted the Act in his request for information, they can ignore him.
So not only is he asking the wrong question, he's asking the wrong people?
- F
He doesn't need to ask any question, and should not make any statement of his knowledge. Just request specific information, he may not even need to state why he wants such information and thus not prudent to give a reason for his request. If the Royal Society is a prescribed organization for processing FOI requests, then fine, if not, then he is stumped and will need to find the correct institution that can process his FOI request. The University of East Anglia, for example, is such a prescribed organization that can process FOI requests, and this web page is self explanatory. http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/strategies/infregs/foi_old/FOIrequests[^]
-
I thought it would be fairly clear. If not let me explain it again: Known, calculated, fundamental physics shows that doubling CO2 will lead to arond a 1C rise in temperature. However when using this figure the computer models cant model the rise in temperature from 1970-2000 so they multiply it. This gives rise to the 2 to 4.5 C temperature rise stated in the link. Now, it is well known that there are a lot of uncertainties and inknowns regarding the climate so how do we know there isnt another factor affecting temperature and that it is that that is responsible for the extra 1 to 3.5 degree rise? In order to determine this the models could be run on the 1910-1940 or the 1860-1880 period which, to quote Dr Jones of CRUT are largely the same as the 1970-2000 period in rate and magnitude, but becuse these periods do not have associated rises in CO2 as great as that for the 1970-2000 period, the effect on any unknowns can be isolated. Thus when run on these earlier periods an estimate of the effect of any unknowns can be arrived at. With this estimation applied to the 1970-2000 period any left over unaccounted warming can be more confidently attributed to CO2. This as you know is the scientific principle of a 'control experiment', whose intention is to take out unknowns and isolate only the factor being tested for. Now, to my knowledge this hasnt been done. I would like to verify that, and if so, know why?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I can't spend too much time on this, I'm busy, but here's some food for thought:
fat_boy wrote:
In order to determine this the models could be run on the 1910-1940 or the 1860-1880 period which, to quote Dr Jones of CRUT are largely the same as the 1970-2000 period in rate and magnitude, but becuse these periods do not have associated rises in CO2 as great as that for the 1970-2000 period, the effect on any unknowns can be isolated.
Basically, no, no, they can't. From what I can get from your post you're essentially asking for a an experiment that demonstrates that no other factor other than CO2 plays a role in warming when 1) it's already known that other factors do play a part and 2) you can't prove a negative.
fat_boy wrote:
Thus when run on these earlier periods an estimate of the effect of any unknowns can be arrived at. With this estimation applied to the 1970-2000 period any left over unaccounted warming can be more confidently attributed to CO2.
You say "more confidently attributed to CO2" but you haven't provided a foundation for the level of confidence that exists in the literature anyway. What is the pre-experimental probability that the observed warming is due to CO2 and what percentage is confidently attributed right now? Google "Bayesian probabilities" and do some reading on that and you'll hopefully understand that suggesting this without contextualizing it with the rest of the literature is basically pissing in the wind.
- F
-
He doesn't need to ask any question, and should not make any statement of his knowledge. Just request specific information, he may not even need to state why he wants such information and thus not prudent to give a reason for his request. If the Royal Society is a prescribed organization for processing FOI requests, then fine, if not, then he is stumped and will need to find the correct institution that can process his FOI request. The University of East Anglia, for example, is such a prescribed organization that can process FOI requests, and this web page is self explanatory. http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/strategies/infregs/foi_old/FOIrequests[^]
He's asking a political group for a scientific opinion that would need to incorporate the scientific literature so while FOI may be relevant, it's not really just "information" that he's looking for. In "information" terms they could just send him to Web of Science. So again, wrong question, wrong people.
- F
-
I can't spend too much time on this, I'm busy, but here's some food for thought:
fat_boy wrote:
In order to determine this the models could be run on the 1910-1940 or the 1860-1880 period which, to quote Dr Jones of CRUT are largely the same as the 1970-2000 period in rate and magnitude, but becuse these periods do not have associated rises in CO2 as great as that for the 1970-2000 period, the effect on any unknowns can be isolated.
Basically, no, no, they can't. From what I can get from your post you're essentially asking for a an experiment that demonstrates that no other factor other than CO2 plays a role in warming when 1) it's already known that other factors do play a part and 2) you can't prove a negative.
fat_boy wrote:
Thus when run on these earlier periods an estimate of the effect of any unknowns can be arrived at. With this estimation applied to the 1970-2000 period any left over unaccounted warming can be more confidently attributed to CO2.
You say "more confidently attributed to CO2" but you haven't provided a foundation for the level of confidence that exists in the literature anyway. What is the pre-experimental probability that the observed warming is due to CO2 and what percentage is confidently attributed right now? Google "Bayesian probabilities" and do some reading on that and you'll hopefully understand that suggesting this without contextualizing it with the rest of the literature is basically pissing in the wind.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
you're essentially asking for a an experiment that demonstrates that no other factor other than CO2 plays a role in warming
No, I am asking that they determine the extent of the unknowns and the poorly understood which all scientists attest to.
Fisticuffs wrote:
What is the pre-experimental probability that the observed warming is due to CO2 and what percentage is confidently attributed right now?
What has stastics got to do with it? Science is about determining absoloutes, not chances.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
you're essentially asking for a an experiment that demonstrates that no other factor other than CO2 plays a role in warming
No, I am asking that they determine the extent of the unknowns and the poorly understood which all scientists attest to.
Fisticuffs wrote:
What is the pre-experimental probability that the observed warming is due to CO2 and what percentage is confidently attributed right now?
What has stastics got to do with it? Science is about determining absoloutes, not chances.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
What has stastics got to do with it? Science is about determining absoloutes, not chances.
*facepalm* I think that explaining this may be completely pointless because your core idea of what science is is fundamentally wrong on so many levels but I'll give it a try. Preamble: I am working on several medical research projects, have done biochemistry laboratory research, have a degree in biochemistry and mathematics, have publications, and I'm about to graduate from my MD. I *live* science. You have done... what exactly that gives you such confidence that you're an expert on what science is about? Go ahead - throw down. So, take it from me: Science is statistics at its core. Without statistics there would be no true advancement of knowledge about complex systems. Every experiment has error, confounders, and alternative explanations for offered hypotheses. Every experiment is only suggested to be correct by a certain percentage and the chance that what was observed in the experiment is due to random fluctuation alone is never zero. Google P-values. Google confidence intervals. However, I have the feeling you're part of the New People of the Internet who basically think it's trendy to reject experts in favor of "doing your own research" at Google University. I've already seen people get extremely sick or dead from having the hubris to think internet access makes them equivalent to a doctor - just like you seem to think that having the internet makes you equivalent to a climatologist. The only difference is that you thinking you're a climatologist probably won't kill anyone which I suppose we can all be thankful for. Don't just take my word for it: see Myth #5[^] The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993). The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this
-
fat_boy wrote:
What has stastics got to do with it? Science is about determining absoloutes, not chances.
*facepalm* I think that explaining this may be completely pointless because your core idea of what science is is fundamentally wrong on so many levels but I'll give it a try. Preamble: I am working on several medical research projects, have done biochemistry laboratory research, have a degree in biochemistry and mathematics, have publications, and I'm about to graduate from my MD. I *live* science. You have done... what exactly that gives you such confidence that you're an expert on what science is about? Go ahead - throw down. So, take it from me: Science is statistics at its core. Without statistics there would be no true advancement of knowledge about complex systems. Every experiment has error, confounders, and alternative explanations for offered hypotheses. Every experiment is only suggested to be correct by a certain percentage and the chance that what was observed in the experiment is due to random fluctuation alone is never zero. Google P-values. Google confidence intervals. However, I have the feeling you're part of the New People of the Internet who basically think it's trendy to reject experts in favor of "doing your own research" at Google University. I've already seen people get extremely sick or dead from having the hubris to think internet access makes them equivalent to a doctor - just like you seem to think that having the internet makes you equivalent to a climatologist. The only difference is that you thinking you're a climatologist probably won't kill anyone which I suppose we can all be thankful for. Don't just take my word for it: see Myth #5[^] The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993). The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this
-
Try here. No mention of stastics[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
1. Wikipedia? Are you serious? Is that your idea of peer-reviewed literature? 2. Reading fail. You missed the part where it says that statistics is "vital" to the natural sciences. Even the shitty articles you cite agree with me and disagree with you. 3. Still waiting on *your* credentials. You've got a big mouth for someone with so few apparent reasons to be talking.
- F
-
1. Wikipedia? Are you serious? Is that your idea of peer-reviewed literature? 2. Reading fail. You missed the part where it says that statistics is "vital" to the natural sciences. Even the shitty articles you cite agree with me and disagree with you. 3. Still waiting on *your* credentials. You've got a big mouth for someone with so few apparent reasons to be talking.
- F
Yeah, it wasnt much of a response I admit, I didnt have much time. :) My credentials? A maters in computer 'science', or at least thats what the course was called, not that its terribly scientific since its more engineering. Anyway, here is my argument vis GW: 1) We know CO2 should cause warming. 2) Theres a lot we dont know about the climate system. 3) (And allmost all scientists say this) it is curently impossible to detect or identify a recent temperature rise that can be attributed to CO2, or is distinctly caused by CO2, against the background of natural variability. (Because there have been equally large and rapid warming perilds recently (quoting Dr Jones herem BBC interview) If it turns out that the only temperature rise from CO2 is 1 degree (which is what it should produce given fundamental physics (quoting Lindzen and the Royal Society paper here)) then it, and the extra CO2 will be a benefit to mankind and the planet. If it turns out that various feedbacks amplify that warming (which is what the computer models are set to (quoting Lindzen) and that amplificaiton is sufficient then there *could* be an effect on weather patterns. However, since the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and we have already increaed CO2 by 40% or so since preindustrial times, then: 1) We have already had most of the warming we are gong to get. 2) That warming has had no noticable effect on weather patterns such as would lead to an increase in storms or droughts. (Various scientific papers attest to this) Now, stastics in all this, and Bob Watson of DEFRA describes it nicely, says that in the absence of any other known factor, the only likely cause of the recent warming is man made CO2. Now tell me, does stastics work in a system where many factors are very badly understood? (quoting IPCC) If you want proof of all that I have quoted I will provide them but I assume you are familiar with them already.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription