Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science' to Caltech

[IanC]

Feynman laid down rules on how not to fool yourself when doing science. Google and read the speech.

Fast forward a few decades and compare climate science. They have stepped into all the pitfalls.

I am not going to rehash everything I have written over the last eight years but I will point out what happened to a minor proxy.

Boreholes show a general relationship to temperatures. There have been tens of thousands of them done. In the 90's, ~15,000 were averaged and the graph showed a warmer MWP. In the early 00's, Mann's hockey stick needed propping up and a new borehole graph was presented using only ~500 holes. It stopped before the MWP and showed a classic hockey stick shape. In the later 00's, the same author produced yet another graph using about 1500 holes. This time the MWP was evident but cooler than the present.

These three papers were all peer reviewed and written by a noted expert in the field. If there can be such wildly divergent conclusions based on the same trove of evidence, by the same author, how can we say the 'science is settled'? I hope you noticed that the first paper used most of the available data, the second only a small fraction, and the third slightly more.

Cherrypicking and dodgy methodologies are the hallmarks of climate science. Any preformed conclusions can be reached by choosing the preferred data and using the preferred methodologies.

 

[SSDD]

Some of the doggiest is the claim of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface even though no discrete band of so called back radiation from a so called greenhouse gas has ever been measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...(rare temperature inversions excepted)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some of the doggiest is the claim of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface even though no discrete band of so called back radiation from a so called greenhouse gas has ever been measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...(rare temperature inversions excepted)

Some of the doggiest is the claim of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface even though no discrete band of so called back radiation from a so called greenhouse gas has ever been measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere

Of course not, because.....dimmer switch.

 

[IanC]

Back to the topic.

Which is the 'right' one? 97, 00, or 08? Which two are similar, which one is the odd man out?

 

[SSDD]

Some of the doggiest is the claim of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface even though no discrete band of so called back radiation from a so called greenhouse gas has ever been measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...(rare temperature inversions excepted)

Some of the doggiest is the claim of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface even though no discrete band of so called back radiation from a so called greenhouse gas has ever been measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere

Of course not, because.....dimmer switch.

Seems that you believe in smart particles more than me...You seem to believe in QM strongly enough. Doesn't QM claim that electrons, and other particles behave differently when they are observed...and that the more you observe, the more differently they behave?... How do they know someone is watching? Why do they feel the need to behave differently simply because they are being observed?

At least my position on why energy does what it does is based on physical law...which physical law gives particles permission to behave differently when they are being observed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some of the doggiest is the claim of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface even though no discrete band of so called back radiation from a so called greenhouse gas has ever been measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...(rare temperature inversions excepted)

Some of the doggiest is the claim of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface even though no discrete band of so called back radiation from a so called greenhouse gas has ever been measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere

Of course not, because.....dimmer switch.

Seems that you believe in smart particles more than me...You seem to believe in QM strongly enough. Doesn't QM claim that electrons, and other particles behave differently when they are observed...and that the more you observe, the more differently they behave?... How do they know someone is watching? Why do they feel the need to behave differently simply because they are being observed?

At least my position on why energy does what it does is based on physical law...which physical law gives particles permission to behave differently when they are being observed?

Seems that you believe in smart particles more than me...

You believe matter can direct its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.
You believe matter dials up or dials down its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.

I believe all matter above 0K emits in all directions, all the time, and those emissions only depend on the temperature of the emitter.

It seems that your particles need to know more than mine before they emit.

At least my position on why energy does what it does is based on physical law...

And all you need is complete knowledge of all matter across all time and space.

 

[mamooth]

Feynman laid down rules on how not to fool yourself when doing science. Google and read the speech.

What did Feynman say about your "It's a conspiracy!" method of science?

By the way, if you're going to echo JoNova, at least link to the page.

The message from boreholes « JoNova

So, on to your conspiracy.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2584&rep=rep1&type=pdf

---
There are important differences that need to be understood between the 20,000 year reconstructions of
HPS97 and the more recent five-century borehole reconstructions typified by HPS00. HPS97 is a broad-brush look
at the entire Late Quaternary (exclusive of the 20th century as noted above), using a large but noisy, low temporal
resolution dataset of heat flux measurements aggregated in 50-meter depth intervals. The HPS00 reconstructions use a
smaller but higher quality and more homogeneous dataset of several hundred borehole temperature versus depth (T-z)
profiles comprising actual temperature measurements at 10 meter intervals. The selection process for these T-z
profiles has been conducted under strict quality control criteria, ensuring a much less noisy dataset than that used
in HPS97. In a sense these studies are complementary, with HPS97 taking a long low-resolution view, and HPS00
making a more focused and sharper assessment of the past five centuries.
---

That is, the 2000 paper used a smaller sample because there were fewer such high-quality measurements.

And you declared it was all a conspiracy. After all, you read something on a blog, instead of looking at the actual research. I can imagine what Feynman would have said about that.

 

[SSDD]

You believe matter can direct its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.
You believe matter dials up or dials down its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.

And you believe that particles know when they are being observed...A photon, if they exist, is, according to physics, present at every point along its path...therefor it doesn't need to know where it is cooler...

You on the other hand believe that particles can somehow be aware that they are being observed and because of that alone, they behave differently...how do they know...and why would they behave differently simply because they are being watched?...are they exhibitionists?

 

[Crick]

Photons exist and they are not present at every point along their path.

But let's not get off the point. Everything you have to say in your rejection of the green house effect and AGW is based solely on the insanely unsupportable contention that photons will not travel from cool matter to warmer matter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You believe matter can direct its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.
You believe matter dials up or dials down its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.

And you believe that particles know when they are being observed...A photon, if they exist, is, according to physics, present at every point along its path...therefor it doesn't need to know where it is cooler...

You on the other hand believe that particles can somehow be aware that they are being observed and because of that alone, they behave differently...how do they know...and why would they behave differently simply because they are being watched?...are they exhibitionists?

Tell me again about matter not emitting toward warmer matter.
That joke never gets old!

 

[IanC]

Back to the topic.

Which is the 'right' one? 97, 00, or 08? Which two are similar, which one is the odd man out?

No comments on the topic?

I have chipped out one brick from the supposedly solid wall of evidence for AGW. In less than a decade it went from supporting the Medieval Warm Period, to becoming a hockey stick, then returning to the original shape but 0.5C lower. All by choosing favourable bits of data and discarding the rest.

I really hope at least some of you read Feynman's speech. The evolution of the borehole papers was not a search for the 'truth', it was an exercise in sophistry meant to bolster the topical needs of climate science.

If you take out other bricks and closely examine them then the same sort of pattern arises. An ever changing use of cherrypicked data, or methodologies chosen to exacerbate the favoured outcome.

 

[mamooth]

I have chipped out one brick from the supposedly solid wall of evidence for AGW. In less than a decade it went from supporting the Medieval Warm Period, to becoming a hockey stick, then returning to the original shape but 0.5C lower. All by choosing favourable bits of data and discarding the rest.

Too bad the science doesn't say that.

However, your blog told you it did, and thus nobody is going to be able to change your mind.

 

[IanC]

I have chipped out one brick from the supposedly solid wall of evidence for AGW. In less than a decade it went from supporting the Medieval Warm Period, to becoming a hockey stick, then returning to the original shape but 0.5C lower. All by choosing favourable bits of data and discarding the rest.

Too bad the science doesn't say that.

However, your blog told you it did, and thus nobody is going to be able to change your mind.

I have you on my ignore list but because of the dearth of on topic responses I chose to look at your comment.

A few years ago I made boreholes a topic for my investigation. I read quite a few papers by different authors and got the basic gist of what was going on in the field. Overall, as the name of the topic suggests, it was boring. As a proxy boreholes give only a general direction of trend with much noise in the data. But there is scads of data, literally tens of thousands of holes.

H&P 97,00,08 use roughly 15000, 500, 1500 data points respectively. The results are wildly divergent. I don't know the process by which the number and location of the boreholes was chosen for each of the papers. But it does seem suspicious, or at least convenient, that the results were in line with 'Conventional wisdom' at the time they were published. In the 90's the MWP was still recognized. In 2000, the latest fad was to remove the MWP and bolster Mann's hockey stick. In 08 the complete dismissal of the MWP was untenable but it was necessary to at least reduce the warmth.

Crick, Old Rocks and others honestly believe each new 'acceptable' climate science paper is the absolute truth, and discard any previous inconvenient ones down the memory hole. You, on the other hand, just act like a lawyer defending a guilty client at the cost of the truth.

There is no point in debating a knowingly dishonest person such as yourself, and that is why you will continue to be on my ignore list.

 

[SSDD]

Photons exist and they are not present at every point along their path.

Got any proof of either statement skid mark? Of course you don't...once again, just talking out of your ass.

 

[mamooth]

. In the 90's the MWP was still recognized. In 2000, the latest fad was to remove the MWP and bolster Mann's hockey stick. In 08 the complete dismissal of the MWP was untenable but it was necessary to at least reduce the warmth.

So what do you hope to accomplish with your revisionist history? Has it fooled even one person somewhere? it doesn't seem like a productive use of time.

Crick, Old Rocks and others honestly believe each new 'acceptable' climate science paper is the absolute truth, and discard any previous inconvenient ones down the memory hole. You, on the other hand, just act like a lawyer defending a guilty client at the cost of the truth

You act like the jailhouse snitch who makes up testimony for a few bucks. No wonder you hate the "lawyers" who point that out.

There is no point in debating a knowingly dishonest person such as yourself, and that is why you will continue to be on my ignore list.

Go back to your SafeSpace, snowflake. You need to get to work on your next dishonest conspiracy theory.

 

[polarbear]

You are calling him (IanC) a snow flake ? He is not a liberal like you. And safe spaces are exclusively for liberal snow flakes like you to avoid "micro aggressions" by conservatives who point out how dishonest liberals are from the top down and sideways throughout the media that invents ever wilder conspiracy theories to "explain" why your lying chief bitch got clobbered.
There is no denying the evidence IanC posted therefore you resort to the usual smears and insults much like the sorry sacks of shit who suck up to get Hollywood approval.
No wonder he put you on his ignore list and I think I'll follow suit because you post nothing but the same garbage day in day out in every thread.
What about that carport for your solar roof and EV you bragged about building? As if,...! all you'll ever `do is bullshit and pip-squeak from your safe space because you are too chicken to stand your ground in public.

 

[SSDD]

You believe matter can direct its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.
You believe matter dials up or dials down its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.

And you believe that particles know when they are being observed...A photon, if they exist, is, according to physics, present at every point along its path...therefor it doesn't need to know where it is cooler...

You on the other hand believe that particles can somehow be aware that they are being observed and because of that alone, they behave differently...how do they know...and why would they behave differently simply because they are being watched?...are they exhibitionists?

Tell me again about matter not emitting toward warmer matter.
That joke never gets old!

The joke is that you question the second law of thermodynamics...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

 

[Crick]

The joke, were it in the least bit funny, would be your 6-year old's interpretation. Tell us why you think you're the expert - that you're right when the entire rest of the world is wrong - when you've never even gotten within a half a mile of a thermodynamics classroom.

Stop being such a blitheringly ignorant fool.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You believe matter can direct its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.
You believe matter dials up or dials down its emissions, based on the temperature of nearby matter.

And you believe that particles know when they are being observed...A photon, if they exist, is, according to physics, present at every point along its path...therefor it doesn't need to know where it is cooler...

You on the other hand believe that particles can somehow be aware that they are being observed and because of that alone, they behave differently...how do they know...and why would they behave differently simply because they are being watched?...are they exhibitionists?

Tell me again about matter not emitting toward warmer matter.
That joke never gets old!

The joke is that you question the second law of thermodynamics...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

Who said anything about heat?

We're talking about radiation.

You know, the stuff the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the hotter corona.

I guess the Sun doesn't realize it's violating the 2nd law.

 

[IanC]

You are calling him (IanC) a snow flake ? He is not a liberal like you. And safe spaces are exclusively for liberal snow flakes like you to avoid "micro aggressions" by conservatives who point out how dishonest liberals are from the top down and sideways throughout the media that invents ever wilder conspiracy theories to "explain" why your lying chief bitch got clobbered.
There is no denying the evidence IanC posted therefore you resort to the usual smears and insults much like the sorry sacks of shit who suck up to get Hollywood approval.
No wonder he put you on his ignore list and I think I'll follow suit because you post nothing but the same garbage day in day out in every thread.
What about that carport for your solar roof and EV you bragged about building? As if,...! all you'll ever `do is bullshit and pip-squeak from your safe space because you are too chicken to stand your ground in public.

I personally think mamooth is a dangerously smart guy. He is a master at creating strawmen and avoiding difficult questions that would take him off his talking points. And he recognizes and learns good techniques. It is unnerving to see your own bon mots turned against someone else in a different thread.