Jump to content
Hello again PearlY,
GIGO = garbage in => garbage out?
Some models are very good and people can and should rely on them. Some models are based on false assumptions, and people should not rely on them.
I am a retired Boeing Senior Technical Fellow with over thirty years of experience in electronic packaging disciplines including system architectures, hardware design for commercial and military ground and airborne avionics, mechanical tolerance analysis, thermal and dynamic/vibration analysis, weights/mass properties analysis, design of experiments, environmental analysis and test, reliability, and environmental stress screening.
The thermal, vibration, and structural finite element modeling we do in aerospace is conceptually similar to the models that generated the 95% confidence. I seen good and bad models. The big difference between aerospace and climate change is the the things we model are simply enough that we can build models that reflect reality within the constraints of available computing power.
Could you be more specific? The citations that come to mind, are the one, on professional weather men, from:
Kolbert, Elizabeth (2010, April 12). Up in the Air. The New Yorker.
and the one on scientific literacy from:
Kahan, Dan M. et al. (2012, May 27). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change / Letter, 2, 732 – 735.
They are available on line, so it is easy to fact check and see if I got something wrong.
If I quoted some other survey, please give me a more specific reminder.
Here is a thought for you: whatever you provide, I will support my argument with facts and logic. I will not have to question your motives or if you really believe what you are saying. If you produce something that leaves me unable to support my argument with facts and logic, I will modify my argument. I still will not have to question your motives or if you really believe what you are saying. AKA - ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of those who can not make an argument with facts and logic.
Here is a second thought: my core argument that climate change is not anthropogenic is based on its two fatal flaws; first backward causation from Sunday's letter; second a natural experiment that I describe (again) in the letter I just submitted. That should be enough for those with reasonable scientific literacy. The commentary on the purported consensus is more explanatory for those who cannot follow an argument based on facts and logic. If you see flaws in the backward causation argument from Sunday, please let me know what they are.
I do not know how conversant you are with finite element models (FEMs) or finite element analysis (FEA)? The 95% confidence is based on the results of such models. Like all models the ones behind this estimate reflect the assumptions used in developing them. Zero percent of these models are capable of meeting the minimum test, for an useful model, of "predicting the past" (the "Medieval Warm Period," the end of the last ice age, etc.). It may be hard to believe that there is anything subject to limitations of available computing power, but Earth's climate system is far too complex to be usefully modeled within the constraints of available computing power. Developers of these models are forced to assume an otherwise constant temperature Earth (a manifestly false assumption) until anthropogenic carbon dioxide leads (another manifestly false assumption - it follows) to warming. There is nothing to the 95% confidence other than the results of models reflect the assumptions that go into building them. I think I am going to write another letter that will give pointers to a "natural experiment" that shows that our very real anthropogenic carbon dioxide has not had any effect on the GTA. I look forward to continuing our conversation.
Forth – And here is the real point: one hundred percent of the “ninety-seven percent” realize that, as I observed in my letter, that changes in the GTA (cause) precede changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (effect).
If you believe that I have the cause and effect relationship backwards, are their other examples of “backward causation” that you accept? Probably not.
Did you notice, in the examples that Mr. Mighell mentioned in his letters, each and every one was a case where increasing temperature caused the release of carbon dioxide? Being concerned that the release of carbon dioxide, following (AKA caused by) an increase in temperature will lead to further increases in temperature is analogous to being afraid that having the light come on, after I flipped the switch, will make me flip the switch more.
From your comments you sound like concerned citizens who are vey concerned about the environment. Me too. The things we might do to restrict carbon emissions, such as encouraging fracking to produce more natural gas in China, carry substantial risk of precipitating a real ecological catastrophe. So here is a challenge for you? How do you resolve “backward causation?” Since changes in temperature always lead changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, how do you sustain the belief that changes in carbon dioxide levels cause (after the fact) changes in temperature?
In one of Plato’s “Dialogues,” Protagoras says, “as to the people, they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them.” I am sure that all of you understand that cause (changes in temperature) leads effect (changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide level). What does you “understanding,” vs. what your “leaders tell” you (albeit 97 percent), say about effect preceding cause? If we precipitate and (worldwide) ecological catastrophe in China, trying to limit carbon emissions, what will we tell our grandchildren?
First – Thank you to all for taking the time to read my letter and respond. I appreciate it.
Second – Carbon dioxide in a garage (or anywhere else), unlike carbon dioxide, will not harm you.
Third – I have a hard time addressing this issue within 400 words. . Another example of those of us outside the “97 percent” would be the Kolbert (2010, April 12, Up in the Air. The New Yorker) report that a number of recent polls have shown that the general public (including professional TV meteorologists) does not believe that Global Warming is serious. “Weather” is certainly not “climate,” but professional TV meteorologists are an example to the people who are scientifically literate, but whose personal interest does not depend on the view that climate change is anthropogenic: the majority are skeptics. I have more examples.
I have observed, previously in this forum, that a recently study funded by the National Science Foundation and published in the journal Nature Climate Change (Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan is the lead author) finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried - “As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased.”
Climate change is a big deal and the DoD is right to be concerned about it. I am concerned about what will happen if Earth continues to warm.
That does not make the warming we have experienced anthropogenic. It clearly is not. Carbon dioxide is a harmless to slightly beneficial gas. We face exigent environmental challenges. We should not be wasting our effort trying to regulate a harmless gas.
By the way, I hope you do not feel bad about your apparent inability to offer a science, logic or (scientific) fact based response to my argument. As far as I can tell, nobody can.
Last login: Monday, November 25, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.